AEON Biopharma (AEON) 10-K2023 FY Annual report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

​

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Report”) contains certain statements that are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”). All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Report, including statements concerning possible or assumed future actions, business strategies, events or results of operations, and any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Report are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Report and are subject to a number of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks, including, without limitation, the following:

The preceding list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all of our forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections. While we believe these expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections are reasonable, such forward-looking statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. These and other important factors, including those discussed in this Report, may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included elsewhere in this Report are not guarantees of future performance and our actual results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and the development of the industry in which we operate, may differ materially from the forward-looking statements included elsewhere in this Report. In addition, even if our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and events in the industry in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements included elsewhere in this Report, they may not be predictive of results or developments in future periods.

Any forward-looking statement that we make in this Report speaks only as of the date of such statement. Except as required by law, we do not undertake any obligation to update or revise, or to publicly announce any update or revision to, any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date of this Report. For all of our forward-looking statements, we claim the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Reform Act.

As used in this Report, unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires: “we,” “us,” “our,” “AEON,” the “Company,” and similar references refer to AEON Biopharma, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and “common stock” refers to our Class A common stock.

​

​

​

​

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

​

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our common stock. Some of the principal risks and uncertainties include the following:

​

PART I

​

Item 1. Business

​

AEON Biopharma, Inc. (“AEON”) is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing its proprietary botulinum toxin complex, ABP-450 (prabotulinumtoxinA) injection (“ABP-450”), for debilitating medical conditions.

On December 12, 2022, AEON Biopharma Sub, Inc. (formerly known as AEON Biopharma, Inc.) (“Old AEON”) and Priveterra Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Priveterra Acquisition Corp. (“Priveterra”), a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or other similar business combination with one or more target businesses, entered into a Business Combination and Merger Agreement (the “Business Combination Agreement” or “BCA”) dated December 12, 2022 and amended April 27, 2023. Old AEON was incorporated in Delaware in February 2012 under the name Alphaeon Corporation, and changed its name to “AEON Biopharma, Inc.” in December 2019.

On July 21, 2023 (the “Closing Date”), the parties consummated the transactions contemplated by the BCA (collectively referred to as the “Merger” or “Business Combination”) in connection with the closing of the Merger (the “Closing”). On the Closing Date, Old AEON merged with Priveterra Merger Sub, Inc., with Old AEON surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company; and the Company changed its name from “Priveterra Acquisition Corp.” to “AEON Biopharma, Inc.”; and Old AEON changed its name to AEON Biopharma Sub, Inc. The post-Merger Company is referred to herein as “AEON,” or the “Company.”

Following the Closing, the Company’s common stock and warrants are listed on the NYSE American under the symbols “AEON” and “AEON WS,” respectively, and commenced trading on July 24, 2023.

Unless the context otherwise requires, references to “we”, “us”, “our” and “the Company” refer to the business and operations of AEON Biopharma, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the Merger (“Old AEON” or the “Predecessor”) and to AEON Biopharma, Inc. (“AEON”) following the consummation of the Merger.

Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing our proprietary botulinum toxin complex, ABP-450, for debilitating medical conditions, with an initial focus on the neurosciences market. We have completed a Phase 2 study of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia and are conducting a Phase 2 study of ABP-450 for the treatment of both chronic and episodic migraine. The topline data from the episodic migraine cohort of the Phase 2 study was reported in October 2023 and the chronic migraine cohort remains ongoing. ABP-450 is the same botulinum toxin complex that is currently approved and marketed for cosmetic indications by Evolus under the name Jeuveau. ABP-450 is manufactured by Daewoong in compliance with cGMP in a facility that has been approved by the FDA, Health Canada and EMA. We have exclusive development and distribution rights for therapeutic indications of ABP-450 in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and certain other international territories. We have built a highly experienced management team with specific experience in biopharmaceutical and botulinum toxin development and commercialization.

Botulinum toxins have proven to be a highly versatile therapeutic biologic, with over 230 therapeutic uses documented in published scientific literature and nine approved therapeutic indications in the United States. Our initial development programs for ABP-450 are directed at migraine, cervical dystonia, gastroparesis and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). We selected these initial indications based on a comprehensive product assessment screen designed to identify indications where we believe ABP-450 can deliver significant value to patients, physicians and payors and where its clinical, regulatory and commercial characteristics suggest viability. We believe that ABP-450 has application in a broad range of indications and we plan to continue to explore additional indications that satisfy our product assessment screens. The following table depicts the development status of ABP-450 across our current indications:

Topline data from the Phase 2 cervical dystonia study, released in September 2022, confirmed that ABP-450 met all primary endpoints and a number of other key secondary endpoints, supporting the safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in reducing signs and symptoms associated with cervical dystonia. ABP-450 demonstrated adverse event rates similar to, or lower than, other botulinum toxin products for the treatment of cervical dystonia. ABP-450 also demonstrated potential for efficacy similar to, or better than, other botulinum toxin products for the treatment of cervical dystonia. We are in discussions with the FDA regarding the design of our Phase 3 study in cervical dystonia, which we expect to commence based on the availability of capital resources.

In December 2020, we initiated a preclinical gastroparesis study with 42 primates receiving multiple injections of ABP-450 across four dose ranges. The objective of this preclinical study was to characterize the safety and toxicology prior to entering human studies. We completed this preclinical study in January 2022. Following the preclinical study, we submitted an IND to the FDA and received a letter in May 2022 confirming that the IND-opening Phase 2a clinical study may proceed. We continue to evaluate various pathways to most efficiently advance this clinical development program.

Additionally, we have an ongoing preclinical study in rats designed to provide IND supporting safety and efficacy data. ABP-450 is injected into the stellate ganglion using ultrasound guidance to assess the effect on the sympathetic nervous pathway, which may inform us whether ABP-450 has the potential for utility across a broad portfolio of neuropsychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We may initiate other preclinical studies from time to time to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in other disorders.

We license ABP-450 from Daewoong, a South Korean pharmaceutical manufacturer, and have exclusive development and distribution rights for therapeutic indications in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and certain other international territories. Daewoong licenses the same 900 kDa botulinum toxin to Evolus for cosmetic indications, which Evolus markets and sells under the name Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union. Prior to licensing the botulinum toxin complex to Evolus, Daewoong conducted a broad preclinical development program for ABP-450 that was primarily focused on safety to support any clinical indication. Subsequently, Evolus completed a comprehensive clinical development program of the same botulinum toxin complex and has received approval from regulatory authorities in the United States, the European Union and Canada to market and sell Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe glabellar, or frown, lines in adults. Over 2,100 adult subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown participated in Evolus’ clinical development program, and each of Evolus’ Phase 3 clinical studies successfully met their respective primary safety and efficacy endpoints. While none of these preclinical or clinical programs specifically contemplated any therapeutic use of ABP-450, given that the FDA’s regulatory requirements are generally the same for the cosmetic or therapeutic use of a toxin, we believe that the positive data derived from these preclinical and clinical studies will support the clinical development and anticipated future safety labeling of ABP-450 for migraine and cervical dystonia, in addition to other indications, at all contemplated dose ranges.

We plan to pursue approval of an original Biologics License Application, or BLA, that exclusively contemplates therapeutic indications for ABP-450, which we believe could improve reimbursement amounts for ABP-450, if approved. Existing botulinum toxins, including Botox, are approved under a single BLA for both therapeutic and cosmetic indications. As a result, other botulinum toxins are required to include the sales prices of both therapeutic and cosmetic botulinum toxin sales when calculating the average selling price, or ASP, that is used to determine the reimbursement amount physicians receive for therapeutic usage. The inclusion of a lower cosmetic sales price in the calculation of ASP can cause physicians to lose money when treating patients with existing botulinum toxins and also creates a deterrent to providing payors and/or providers with rebates or other financial incentives. If we are successful in obtaining an original BLA for therapeutic indications of ABP-450, the ASP for ABP-450 would be calculated using only therapeutic sales, which we believe would facilitate consistent and favorable reimbursement to physicians when they choose to use ABP-450 for therapeutic treatments, as well as the ability to provide payors and/or providers with rebates and other financial incentives. This pricing model would be unique to us within the current therapeutic neurotoxin market, and we believe it would allow physicians to provide treatment with ABP-450 at a more competitive or the same net price as the market leader after rebates and discounts.

We believe ABP-450 could have therapeutic applications in a broad range of debilitating medical conditions, and we intend to continue to leverage our product assessment screening process to identify additional indications for future development. Our management team possesses significant and relevant experience in the botulinum toxin industry in both drug development and commercialization, and we believe they are highly qualified to successfully develop and commercialize ABP-450 to enhance the lives of patients that suffer from debilitating medical conditions.

Overview of the Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Market

Botulinum toxins are a standard treatment for a number of indications, including debilitating movement disorders, chronic migraine, overactive bladder, excessive salivating and excessive sweating, and are the first-line standard of care for the treatment of certain conditions, including cervical dystonia. The use of botulinum toxins to treat debilitating medical conditions began with the FDA approving Botox for the treatment of strabismus and blepharospasm, two eye muscle disorders, in adults, in 1989. Botox was the only FDA-approved type-A botulinum toxin until 2009 when the FDA initially approved Dysport for the treatment of cervical dystonia and glabellar lines in adults. In 2010, the FDA approved Xeomin for the treatment of cervical dystonia and blepharospasm in adults. There are currently nine unique therapeutic indications for botulinum toxins that have been approved by the FDA.

The global therapeutic botulinum toxin market is forecast to grow from $3.0 billion in 2020 to an estimated $4.4 billion in 2027, according to the Decision Resources Group Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Market Analysis Global as of 2021. This market growth is expected to be driven primarily by growth in the number of procedures, which is expected to grow from 2.7 million in 2020 to an estimated 5.0 million in 2027, as well as multiple other factors. The global therapeutic toxin market is concentrated in the United States, which has an estimated 84% market share, while the European Union has an estimated 9% market share and Asia Pacific has an estimated 7% market share. The United States is projected to continue to be the largest market for therapeutic botulinum toxin treatment, primarily due to the greater number of approved indications, higher ASP, and greater patient and physician awareness of botulinum toxin usage. The global therapeutic toxin market also further breaks down by indication, with migraine comprising approximately 36% of the market share, spasticity comprising approximately 28% of the market share, cervical dystonia comprising approximately 17% of the market share, overactive bladder comprising approximately 6% of the market share and other indications comprising approximately 13% of the market share.

According to Decision Resources Group, Botox, Dysport and Xeomin collectively made up over 98% of the United States therapeutic market for botulinum toxins in 2021. The market leader for therapeutic botulinum toxins is Botox, which is marketed by AbbVie Inc., or AbbVie, and had approximately 85% of the global therapeutic market share for botulinum toxins and 95% of the United States therapeutic market share for botulinum toxins in 2019. The migraine indication is AbbVie’s single largest toxin therapeutic indication, and contributes to 45% of AbbVie’s therapeutic toxin sales. The main approved competitors to Botox are Dysport, marketed by Ipsen Ltd., and Xeomin, marketed by Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC, each of which have approximately 2% of the global market share for therapeutic botulinum toxin treatments.

Our Market Opportunity

We believe that the markets for our initial target indications of migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis represent a significant opportunity above the current market estimates for therapeutic botulinum toxin. Taken together, we estimate that our target indications represent a total addressable market opportunity of approximately $31 billion due in large part to the significant patient population that would become accessible if ABP-450 is approved for the treatment of episodic migraine.

The largest component of our total addressable market opportunity is the preventative migraine market, which includes the treatment of chronic migraine and episodic migraine. Approximately 14.0 million patients suffer from either chronic or episodic migraine, of which approximately 4.1 million and 9.9 million patients suffering from chronic migraine and episodic migraine, respectively. According to the American Migraine and Prevalence and Prevention Study conducted from 2004 to 2009, approximately 56% of patients with migraine had ever received a medical diagnosis, which represents approximately 2.4 million patients of the approximately 4.1 million patients with chronic migraine. Based on these 2.4 million patients and a treatment protocol of four treatment cycles per year, with two vials per treatment at our anticipated list pricing of $634 per vial, we estimate that the annual market opportunity for the treatment of chronic migraine is approximately $11.2 billion. As the episodic migraine market is less developed than chronic migraine, and because episodic migraine is less debilitating in terms of headache and migraine days per month, we believe a lower percentage of patients with episodic migraine will be diagnosed or treated as compared to chronic migraine. Assuming 40% of patients, or 4.0 million patients, are diagnosed with episodic migraine and are treated using the treatment protocol above, we estimate that the annual market opportunity for the treatment of episodic migraine is approximately $18.5 billion. As of 2016, we estimate that approximately 820,000 patients, or 37% of diagnosed chronic migraine patients, and approximately 740,000 patients, or 20% of diagnosed episodic migraine patients, are using prescription medication as a preventative treatment measure. Similarly, of the 3.7 million diagnosed high-frequency and chronic migraine patients, only 1.1 million currently use prescription medication as a preventative treatment. We believe that the preventative migraine market will expand as patient and physician awareness and migraine diagnosis rates increase due in part to the market growth of injectable monoclonal antibody therapies that target calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors, or CGRPs, and the introduction of oral CGRPs.

We believe that the treatment of cervical dystonia represents an attractive market opportunity and presents a regulatory pathway to facilitate other treatments in the broader muscle movement disorder market, which accounts for a significant percentage of the therapeutic botulinum toxin market. Based on United States census data and published clinical studies as of 2021, we estimate that there are approximately 54,000 cervical dystonia patients in the United States, of which 35,000 are currently treated. We expect the number of patients with cervical dystonia will continue to increase in the coming years. Based on a treatment protocol of three treatment cycles per year, with three vials per treatment at our anticipated list pricing of $634 per vial, we estimate that the annual market opportunity for the treatment of cervical dystonia will be approximately $360 million in our anticipated year of commercialization, if approved.

We also believe that the treatment of gastroparesis represents a significant market opportunity. Based on United States census data and published clinical studies, we estimate that there are approximately 400,000 addressable gastroparesis patients in the United States, of which over 200,000 have moderate to severe symptoms and would be eligible for treatment with a botulinum toxin. Based on our proposed treatment protocol and anticipated pricing, we estimate that the annual market opportunity for the treatment of gastroparesis is approximately $900 million. We believe the current market for treatment of gastroparesis is underestimated due to the lack of meaningful treatment options available to patients and physicians, and that diagnosis rates could increase if ABP-450 can demonstrate efficacy and safety in treating the disease.

Overview of ABP-450

ABP-450 is a 2-chain polypeptide, a heavy chain joined by a bond to a light chain. The light chain is a protease enzyme that attacks fusion proteins at the neuromuscular junction, preventing the vesicles containing acetylcholine from anchoring to the membrane and inhibiting their release. ABP-450 interferes with nerve impulses by inhibiting the release of acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction, causing a flaccid paralysis of muscles.

The active biologic ingredient in ABP-450 is Clostridium botulinum toxin, type A with a complete molecular complex weight of 900 kDa. Botulinum toxin type A is an active toxin composed of a covalently bonded dimer of two complexes consisting of neurotoxin, non-toxic non-haemagglutinin protein, and haemagglutinin proteins. The active part of the botulinum toxin is the 150 kDa component, and the remaining 750 kDa of the complex is made up of accessory proteins that we believe help with the function of the active portion of the botulinum toxin. When injected at therapeutic levels, ABP-450 blocks peripheral acetylcholine release at presynaptic cholinergic nerve terminals by cleaving SNAP-25, a protein integral to the successful docking and release of acetylcholine from vesicles situated within the nerve endings leading to denervation and relaxation of the muscle. ABP-450, if approved, will be the only therapeutic botulinum toxin with significantly similar physiochemical properties as Botox. In addition, ABP-450 will be the only therapeutic botulinum toxin that shares the same procedure and dilution ratios for the reconstitution of the botulinum toxin to an injectable liquid. These reconstitution procedures are not subject to intellectual property protection. We believe the similarity of the two products will facilitate physician adoption of ABP-450 more rapidly and sustainably than other botulinum toxins that compete with Botox.

Daewoong has recently constructed a facility in South Korea where it produces ABP-450 and Jeuveau, which is the same botulinum toxin complex as ABP-450. The manufacture of ABP-450 drug substance is based on the fermentation of Daewoong’s C.botulinum cell line, followed by isolation and purification of the drug substance. Daewoong has received a United States patent for the production process. The drug substance production facility was purpose built and is in compliance with FDA and EMA cGMP requirements. We believe this facility will be sufficient to meet demand for ABP-450 for the foreseeable future.

Our Pipeline

We have three existing product candidates in our pipeline: migraine, cervical dystonia, and gastroparesis, each as discussed below. The anticipated level of financing needed for our existing pipeline candidates is highly variable and difficult to project as the design of our Phase 3 migraine studies, which is our primary cost driver, will be largely based on the data generated by our Phase 2 migraine studies. As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan through June 2024, including $15 million of committed financing related to the issuance of certain Convertible Notes with Daewoong. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” We are actively attempting to secure additional capital to fund our operations. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any further development of ABP-450 for any indication, including the completion of the Phase 2 open-label extension study in migraine, any Phase 3 trials for migraine, and any additional studies in cervical dystonia, will require additional funding, which may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all.

Migraine

Migraine is a complex neurological condition characterized by recurrent episodes of headaches. Patients that suffer from migraine headaches experience symptoms including throbbing recurring pain, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sensitivity to light, sound, touch and smell. Migraine attacks usually last between four and 72 hours. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study conducted in 2019, migraine is the second leading disability in the world. The development and course of migraine differs from patient to patient, where a subset of patients experience an increase in frequency over a period of months or years and may gradually evolve from low-frequency episodic migraine to high-frequency episodic migraine and then to chronic migraine.

Industry sources and published research estimate that approximately 15% of adults in the United States experience migraine or severe headache, which represents approximately 40 million people. An estimated 1 billion people worldwide suffer from migraines, making migraine the third most prevalent illness in the world. Using prevalence rates from various published sources, we estimate that approximately 4.0 million people in the United States suffer from chronic migraines, defined as headache occurring on 15 or more days per month and eight or more migraines per month, with migraine defined as headache lasting for four or more hours per day, and that 9.4 million people in the United States live with episodic migraine, defined as headache occurring on 15 or fewer days per month and migraine occurring from six to 14 times per month.

Migraine treatment is broadly divided into two strategies: acute and prophylactic treatment. The primary goal of acute treatment is to provide relief from the pain and associated symptoms after a migraine attack has started. The primary goal of prophylactic, or preventative, treatment is to preemptively decrease the frequency, severity and duration of future migraine attacks. A key pathway for migraine and headache pain is the trigeminovascular input from the meningeal vessels. These nerves pass through the trigeminal ganglion and synapses on second-order neurons in the trigeminocervical complex, which then project through the quintothalamic tract and, after decussating in the brain stem, form synapses with neurons in the thalamus. Disrupting pain stimulus to the trigeminocervical complex is one means of mitigating migraine headaches and botulinum toxin has pharmacological activity that can disrupt peripherical neuronal pain stimulus to the complex. Botulinum toxins are generally a third-line therapy in the prophylactic treatment of migraine patients. First- and second-line treatments to prevent migraine generally include the use of orally administered anti-epileptic, beta-blocker and tricyclic antidepressant pharmaceuticals, or the use of neuromodulation devices to stimulate the vagus nerve. Currently, the discontinuation rate for patients on existing oral preventive migraine medications is high due to poor tolerability and lack of efficacy. Migraine patients will typically progress to the third-line botulinum toxin therapy when first- and second-line therapies are not effective or not well-tolerated.

Botox is the only botulinum toxin approved by the FDA for prophylaxis of headaches in adult patients with chronic migraine and with a patented treatment protocol that designates a total dose of 155 units into 31 injection sites across seven areas of the head and neck. Botox is only approved for chronic migraine and there is no botulinum toxin approved for prevention of episodic migraine. Frequently reported adverse reactions following treatment with Botox for migraine include eyelid ptosis, commonly known as “drooping eyelid,” neck pain and muscle weakness. Sales of Botox for chronic migraine were estimated to be $691 million in 2019, and the use of Botox for chronic migraine increased from 2018 through the first quarter of 2021, with quarterly claims ranging from between 118,000 and 147,000 during this period. Such claims increased despite the introduction and presence of multiple CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide)- targeting medications during this period. We believe that as of March 2022, the majority of patients with chronic migraine who elected to switch treatment options chose Botox, with an estimated 65% of patients choosing Botox versus 35% choosing a CGRP. Another third-line treatment for migraine, referred to as CGRP-targeting medications, has recently been approved. CGRP is present in many organs in the body and when released around the nerves of the head, CGRP can cause inflammation and result in migraines.

CGRP-targeting medications seek to block the peptide itself in an effort to prevent the migraine. CGRPs can target treatment of both chronic and episodic migraines, unlike Botox, which is used exclusively for treatment of chronic migraine. FDA-approved CGRPs include self-injectable monoclonal antibody formulations (Aimovig, Emgality, and Ajovy), an intravenous monoclonal antibody formulation (Vyepti) as well as oral formulations (Nurtec ODT and Qulipta). The use of CGRPs increased from 2018 through the second quarter of 2022, with quarterly claims ranging from between 875 and 547,000 during this period. Such claims stabilized in 2020, and Botox has returned to growth after a brief flat period we attribute to CGRP launches and COVID-19 challenges.

We are seeking to develop ABP-450 for the prevention of migraine and are conducting a Phase 2 clinical study, which is ongoing with respect to chronic migraine, in this indication. Prior to commencing this Phase 2 study, no Phase 1 clinical studies of ABP-450 had been performed in regard to migraine by us or any other party. We have not conducted independent preclinical work for ABP-450

as a preventative treatment for migraine. ABP-450 is a similar structure to OnabotulniumtoxinA (Botox) which was FDA- approved for the prevention of chronic migraine in 2010. The clinical trials for Botox involved close to 1,400 patients in two trials termed the PREEMPT trials. According to Botox, over five million Botox treatments have been used in over 850 thousand chronic migraine patients and is the top branded treatment for chronic migraine. ABP-450 has demonstrated similar results to OnabotuliniumtoxinA in other neurological conditions such as cervical dystonia and in glabellar lines (aesthetic use). Therefore, we believe ABP-450 has the potential to demonstrate a similar efficacy and safety profile as those seen with OnabotuliniumtoxinA with regards to prophylactic treatment for migraine. Further, there is no known physiological difference between episodic and chronic migraines, and we therefore believe a treatment that effectively addresses chronic migraine should similarly treat episodic migraine. This has been concluded in the studies of other migraine treatments, such as the injectable versions of the CGRP class of drugs, all of which have received both episodic and chronic migraine approvals. In light of this, and the extensive preclinical toxicology and other data developed by our licensing partner, Daewoong, and the aesthetic licensor of ABP-450, Evolus, the FDA permitted us to proceed directly to this Phase 2 clinical trial.

Our Phase 2 clinical study, which remains ongoing with respect to chronic migraine, utilizes our patented injection protocol that contemplates 26 injections in the head and neck, which would represent a decrease in the number of injections comparative to the current Botox label by approximately 30% and which would further represent differentiated injection locations for ABP-450 as compared to the current Botox label. Similar to the Botox chronic migraine indication, which contemplates titration up to 195 units with up to 39 injections, we are evaluating the effect of administering up to 195 units with up to 26 injections. We believe that our injection protocol will show equivalent efficacy and durability to the currently approved paradigm by utilizing novel injection sites and techniques to effectively target sensory nerve pathways implicated in migraine to reduce stimuli to the trigeminal complex. Furthermore, by eliminating or changing some injection sites, it may decrease the risk of patients experiencing the most common side effects of muscle weakness in the neck and eyelid ptosis. As of February 10, 2023, the double-blind safety data for ABP-450 in the preventive treatment of patients with chronic migraine included 4 patients (out of 190 episodic migraine patients) and 2 patients (out of 128 chronic migraine patients) who experienced neck pain, and no observed instances of muscular weakness or eyelid ptosis.

We believe that our patented injection protocol (U.S. Patent No. 11,826,405) differentiate ABP-450 from Botox as a third-line therapy for the prevention of chronic migraine and would establish a new treatment option for the prevention of episodic migraine, thereby addressing a broader patient population. We also believe treatment with ABP-450 provides an opportunity for improved safety and tolerability of treatment as compared to our competitors. Beyond potential mitigation of some of the risk of common adverse events associated with Botox’s approved injection regimen, which include eyelid ptosis, neck pain and muscle weakness, our novel injection protocol is also designed to simplify the administration of ABP-450. We believe our proposed treatment protocol, combined with our exclusive focus on therapeutic indications and the same 900 kDa property as Botox, could create a compelling pharmacoeconomic opportunity to payors, while enhancing the physician and patient treatment experience.

The FDA accepted an IND for our Phase 2 clinical study of ABP-450 for the prevention of migraine in October 2020, and we began patient dosing in March 2021. We plan to enroll 765 patients into this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study across approximately 60 study sites in the United States, Canada and Australia, and are continuing enrollment with respect to chronic migraine. This study includes migraine patients that experience six or more migraines per month, which is inclusive of both chronic migraine patients that experience 15 or more headache days and eight or more migraines per month, as well as certain episodic migraine patients that experience fewer than 15 headache days and between six to 14 migraines per month. Patients enrolled in the study receive two injection cycles utilizing our patented injection protocol of 22 active injection sites at a low dose of 150 units and four placebo injection sites, or 26 active injection sites at a high dose of 195 units, or placebo, with patients evenly split among the three arms.

Upon enrollment into the clinical study, patients enter into an initial screening and baseline period of approximately four weeks prior to receiving an initial injection cycle. A second injection cycle is administered 12 weeks after the initial treatment, and the patient is evaluated for 16 weeks after the second treatment. All patients who remain in the clinical study may be eligible to enroll in the optional dose-blinded long-term safety study whereby patients are again randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the low dose or high dose protocol for an additional 52 week period.

The primary endpoints for the clinical study are the change in mean monthly migraine days, or MMD, from the four week baseline period to weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and the incidence of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events, or TEAEs, compared to placebo. The key secondary and exploratory endpoints include the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in MMD during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period, changes in use of escape medications from baseline, certain safety endpoints and other patient and rating scales. We are also assessing the overall mean change from baseline in

the number of MMD requiring migraine-specific acute treatments and the overall mean change from baseline in moderate to severe headache hours, among other secondary efficacy assessments. The study also evaluates health-related quality of life patient reported outcomes during the study period, including patient reported impression of severity, impression of change, disability assessment, and physical function impact.

In October 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The Phase 2 clinical trial for episodic migraine did not meet the primary endpoint, though it did show statistical significance on multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, including the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in monthly migraine days and 75% in monthly migraine days during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and improvements on certain patient and rating scales. ABP-450 demonstrated a favorable safety profile for patients with episodic migraine. We believe the totality of the data provides evidence of a dose response favoring the higher 195U dose and lends support to our decision to progress ABP-450 into Phase 3 with respect to migraine. In the first quarter of 2024, we announced the successful outcome from an end-of-Phase 2 (EOP2) meeting with the FDA that supported advancing ABP-450 (prabotulinumtoxinA) injection into a pivotal Phase 3 study.

We expect to announce an interim readout of topline data related to the chronic cohort of our Phase 2 migraine study in the second quarter of 2024, with the full topline data expected to be released in the third quarter of 2024. We plan to request an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA with respect to the episodic cohort to discuss the protocol and study design for Phase 3, and the meeting is expected to take place in the first half of 2024. The expected cost of the Phase 2 clinical study with respect to migraine is between $45.0 million and $55.0 million. The expected cost of the Phase 2 open-label extension study with respect to migraine is between $30.0 million and $40.0 million. As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan through June 2024, including $15 million of committed financing related to the issuance of certain Convertible Notes with Daewoong. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” We are actively attempting to secure additional capital to fund our operations. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any further development of ABP-450 for any indication, including the completion of the Phase 2 open-label extension study in migraine and any Phase 3 trials for migraine, will require additional funding, which may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all.

Cervical Dystonia

Cervical dystonia, also known as spasmodic torticollis, is a neurological condition characterized by involuntary muscle contractions of the neck that may present as spasms, contractions or abnormal posture. It is a chronic condition with no cure, causing significant pain and challenges to mobility due to abnormal postures, and affecting quality of life and daily activities. Botulinum toxin is the standard of care for the treatment of cervical dystonia, helping to improve pain, posture, and disability.

We believe that ABP-450’s mechanism of action has the potential to provide an effective treatment for patients suffering from cervical dystonia and, with a focused clinical program, may have the potential to provide an effective treatment for certain movement disorders, and broader muscle spasticity indications and labels. Botox, Dysport and Xeomin are currently approved by the FDA, and Daxxify’s supplemental BLA was accepted by the FDA for the therapeutic treatment of cervical dystonia in adult patients to reduce the severity of abnormal head and neck pain. ABP-450 has a similar 900 kDa molecular weighting to Botox, which we believe will facilitate physician adoption of ABP-450 more rapidly and sustainably than other botulinum toxins that compete with therapeutic uses of Botox. We believe that this physician conversion will be enhanced by reimbursement advantages we intend to offer to payors and physicians that will differentiate the economics of using ABP-450 from Botox.

In August 2022, we completed our Phase 2 clinical study of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia. This study enrolled 59 patients across approximately 20 sites in the United States. The study patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio across four treatment arms: a low dose 150 units of ABP-450, a medium dose 250 units of ABP-450, a high dose 350 units of ABP-450, or placebo. A treatment cycle consisted of one treatment cycle. Due to the nature of the disease, dosing was tailored to the individual patient based on the patient’s head and neck position, localization of pain, muscle hypertrophy, patient response, and adverse event history. The safety and efficacy of each of the four arms was evaluated over a maximum of 20 weeks. At the completion of the Phase 2 clinical study, all patients, irrespective of treatment group, had the option to receive treatment with ABP-450 by rolling over into a 52 week open-label extension study, and 51 of the patients opted to do so.

The primary endpoint of the clinical study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the single treatment cycle of ABP-450. To do so, the study, among other things, assessed the proportion of patients who developed TEAEs during the first 20 weeks of a single

treatment cycle at any of the administered doses of ABP-450. The secondary efficacy endpoints included evaluating (1) the mean difference of change from baseline to week four of each dosing cohort, as measured by the Total Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale, or TWSTRS, the standard scale for measuring the severity of cervical dystonia, (2) certain subscales of TWSTRS, (3) Patient Global Impression of Change, (4) Clinical Global Impression of Change, and (5) duration of effect as measured by the median time to loss of 80% peak treatment effect.

Topline data from the Phase 2 study, released in September 2022, confirmed that ABP-450 met the primary and a number of other key secondary endpoints, supporting the safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in reducing signs and symptoms associated with cervical dystonia. ABP-450 was generally safe and well-tolerated with (1) zero discontinuations due to TEAEs, (2) low rate of treatment-related TEAEs, (1) zero dysphagia cases in the 150 unit arm and low rate of dysphagia (11%) and muscle weakness (6.7%) overall, and (4) all treatment-related TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity and transient in nature.

We believe the ABP-450 efficacy results from our Phase 2 study of are similar to those achieved by another company in the Phase 3 clinical trial it relied upon to submit a supplemental BLA application for the treatment of cervical dystonia using its toxin. ABP-450’s efficacy results include: (1) TWSTRS at week four improved 14.01 points in the 150 unit arm, 11.28 points in the 250 unit arm, 9.92 points in the 350 unit arm, and 3.57 points in the placebo, showing a statistically significant change in the lower dose arms versus the placebo and clinically meaningful improvement (although not statistically significant) in all three arms; (2) Patient Global Impression of Change demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all three unit arms over the placebo; and (3) Clinical Global Impression of Change demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all three unit arms over the placebo. With respect to a few secondary endpoints, ABP-450 did not statistically separate from placebo, including in the TWSTRS pain subscale in any of the arms, the TWSTRS severity subscale in the mid- and high-dose arms or the TWSTRS disability subscale in the high-dose arm.

The median duration of treatment effect was at least 20 weeks for all three treatment arms. We are currently preparing for end of Phase 2 meetings with FDA and EMA. At this time we cannot predict the cost of completing the development of ABP-450 for cervical dystonia. Given our current capital resources, we do not expect to continue development of ABP-450 in cervical dystonia, including the commencement of any Phase 3 clinical trials, unless and until we are able to raise additional capital to support those activities.

We acknowledge that others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program or the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or product.

Gastroparesis and other preclinical studies

Gastroparesis is a gastrointestinal disorder characterized by the slowing or stoppage of movement of food and liquid from the stomach to the small intestine. The disease largely occurs due to neuropathy, which causes stomach muscles to stop functioning normally. The neuropathy can have various causes, including diabetes, surgery, viral infections and autoimmune disorders, though many patients suffer from idiopathic gastroparesis for which there is no known cause. Symptoms of gastroparesis are chronic, with episodic exacerbations, and include vomiting, nausea, bloating, early fullness while eating meals, heartburn, and epigastric pain.

The first-line treatment for gastroparesis is the modification of a patient’s diet and, for diabetic gastroparesis patients, improved glycemic control. The currently available second-line therapies for gastroparesis are characterized by medications that provide short-term relief and limited efficacy and whose labeling including significant warnings. Metoclopramide is currently the only drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of gastroparesis with limited usage due to significant side effects, including extrapyramidal effects. Metoclopramide is a prokinetic agent, which can be administered orally or by nasal spray. Approved metoclopramide medications include a black box warning that the use of the medication can cause tardive dyskinesia, a serious movement disorder that is often irreversible. Other medications used for the treatment of gastroparesis can include macrolides, domperidone, erythromycin and anti-emetics. However, these medications are not approved in the United States for gastroparesis. In severe cases of gastroparesis, where patient symptoms are refractory to medical therapy and diet modification, there are more invasive options such as gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy, surgical implantation of a gastric electrical stimulation device on the stomach, pyloric sphincterotomy, complete or partial gastrectomy, pyloric sphincterotomy or jejunostomy. In some cases, Botox has been used on an off-label basis prior to surgery in patients that have failed diet and medications.

We believe that an unmet need for the treatment of gastroparesis exists and, if approved, ABP-450 could serve as an effective third-line treatment for patients that do not achieve effective results with first-line diet therapy and second-line medication or discontinue use of medication due to poor tolerability. In a research study report published in February 2017 by the International Foundation of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, 60% of gastroparesis patients are not satisfied with available treatments. There are no approved botulinum toxin therapies for the treatment of gastroparesis; however, data from several retrospective or open-label studies conducted in the United States and Europe evaluating the efficacy and safety of Botox for the treatment of gastroparesis have been published and reflect potentially promising results. Other studies have also shown promising results, particularly with respect to neurotoxins delivered via endoscopic intrasphincter injection of the pylorus in patients with idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis. Certain double-blind placebo-controlled clinical studies did not display statistically significant separation between the placebo and Botox groups. We believe that the design of these studies may have contributed to this result; notably, these studies included less than 35 patients, included both diabetic and idiopathic patients, followed patients for only four weeks post-treatment, and did not account for the potential therapeutic effect of injecting saline into the target site. Our future clinical studies will consider the design of these previous studies, which we believe will increase the likelihood that ABP-450 will show a statistically significant benefit when compared to placebo.

In December 2020, prior to filing our IND for the treatment of gastroparesis with ABP-450, we and our partner Charles River initiated a preclinical dosing study of ABP-450 related to the treatment of gastroparesis with 42 primates receiving multiple injections in and around the pyloric sphincter across four dose ranges. The dosing ranges included dosing arms of 10, 15, 20 and 25 units/kg. The study followed the subjects for a total of up to 6 months. At the conclusion of the study, we determined that the safe and effective dosing range was between 100 units and 300 units/60 kg person. The FDA has not found, and the FDA may not find, that such dosing range (or any dosing range) was or will be safe and effective. The total number of animals to be used in this study is considered to be the minimum required to properly characterize the effects of ABP-450 and has been designed such that it does not require an unnecessary number of animals to accomplish its objectives. The objective of this preclinical study was to characterize the safety and toxicology prior to entering human studies. We completed this preclinical study in January 2022 and used the data to support an IND submission. Our IND has been accepted, and, subject to the availability of capital resources, we expect to initiate a Phase 2a clinical study in 2024 to study the safety and efficacy of injecting a therapeutic dose of ABP-450 through a standard sclerotherapy needle into the pylorus and pyloric sphincter region. Our primary endpoints will measure change in core signs and symptoms from baseline over a 12-week treatment period, as recommended by the FDA given that a well-defined and reliable patient reported outcome is not yet available for gastroparesis. We plan to assess idiopathic and diabetic patients in separate gastroparesis trials.

At this time we cannot predict the cost of completing the development of ABP-450 for gastroparesis. Given our current capital resources, we do not expect to continue development of ABP-450 in gastroparesis unless and until we are able to raise additional capital to support those activities. Additionally, we have an ongoing preclinical study in rats designed to provide IND supporting safety and efficacy data. ABP-450 is injected into the stellate ganglion using ultrasound guidance to assess the effect on the sympathetic nervous pathway, which may inform us whether ABP-450 has the potential for utility across a broad portfolio of neuropsychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We may initiate other preclinical studies from time to time to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in other disorders.

Previous Development of our Botulinum Toxin

The same botulinum toxin as ABP-450 has been approved for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines in the United States, the European Union and Canada, and a form of the botulinum toxin has been approved for the treatment of post-stroke upper limb spasticity in South Korea. Evolus markets and sells the same botulinum toxin as ABP-450 for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines under the brand name Jeuveau in the United States and under the brand name Nuceiva in the European Union and Canada, and Daewoong markets and sells its similar botulinum toxin under the brand name Nabota in South Korea. We believe that the Daewoong and Evolus studies related to the treatment of glabellar lines are relevant to the development of ABP-450 for therapeutic indications for several reasons, including that over 2,100 adults have been injected with a botulinum toxin that is identical or nearly identical to ABP-450 in the context of a clinical study program, generating significant safety, efficacy and non-inferiority data in the cosmetic setting.

​

Daewoong Preclinical Toxicology Program

In accordance with international guidelines and in consultation with the FDA, Daewoong conducted a broad preclinical development program for ABP-450, including the study of dose concentrations contemplated for multiple therapeutic uses. The program included preclinical efficacy, safety, reproductive toxicity and single and repeat dose toxicity studies of ABP-450. While this program did not specifically contemplate the use of ABP-450 for migraine, cervical dystonia, or gastroparesis, we believe that the

positive data derived from these preclinical studies will support the clinical development and anticipated future safety labeling of ABP-450 for migraine and cervical dystonia at all contemplated dose ranges. We will have to conduct additional toxicology studies to support the gastroparesis clinical program because it includes a new target organ.

Daewoong South Korean Clinical Development for Glabellar Lines

In South Korea, Daewoong conducted two clinical studies of Nabota, a form of the same botulinum toxin as ABP-450, to support its BLA for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines to the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, or MFDS, including one Phase 1 clinical study and one Phase 3 clinical study. Both studies were double-blind, randomized studies with an active control, Botox. Each study compared 20 units of Nabota with 20 units of Botox, injected into each of five target sites in the glabellar region of adult subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines.

Nabota was approved by the MFDS for marketing on November 29, 2013 for the treatment of glabellar lines. The Nabota formulation, which was used in the early South Korean studies and which was commercialized by Daewoong, is slightly different than the formulation used in the studies sponsored by Evolus. The original Daewoong product was lyophilized and used a different human serum albumin that had not been approved by the FDA or EMA. With the approval of the Evolus vacuum dried product, Jeuveau, Daewoong has harmonized its product to be the same as the Evolus product and the same as the product that will be used in the clinical studies sponsored by us.

Evolus Clinical Development for Glabellar Lines

In 2014, Evolus initiated a comprehensive five-study clinical development program for Jeuveau, which consists of the same botulinum toxin complex as ABP-450, in the United States, the European Union and Canada to meet the regulatory requirements for a BLA in the United States, marketing authorization application, or MAA, in the European Union, and NDS, in Canada, for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines. The Evolus development program included three multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, controlled, single dose Phase 3 clinical studies and two open-label, multiple dose, long-term Phase 2 clinical studies. In each of the studies related to Jeuveau for the treatment of glabellar lines, the Jeuveau treatment group showed superiority over the placebo group and, where Botox was included as an active control, the Jeuveau treatment group was determined to be non-inferior to Botox. Between September 2014 and August 2016, over 2,100 adult male and female subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown participated in this program. Jeuveau was approved for the cosmetic treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines by the FDA in February 2019, and the same botulinum toxin was approved under the brand name Nuceiva by Health Canada in August 2018 and by the European Commission in September 2019.

Daewoong South Korean Clinical Development for Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity

Daewoong has conducted a post-stroke upper-limb spasticity Phase 3 clinical study in South Korea. It was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, active drug controlled, Phase 3 clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of up to 360 units of Nabota to Botox. Nabota was found to be non-inferior to Botox in this study. The result of this study was the basis for registration and approval of Nabota with the MFDS for the post-stroke upper limb spasticity indication in South Korea.

Patients diagnosed with a stroke at least six weeks prior to the start date of the study and found to be eligible based on the screening test result were randomized to either Nabota or Botox. Treatment consisted of intramuscular injections of up to 360 units to the wrist flexor, elbow flexor, finger flexor or thumb-in-palm; the total dose depended on the existence and severity of spasticity. In order to assess efficacy and safety after the treatment, follow-up visits were performed at four, eight and 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint compared the evaluations of the changes in muscle tension values as measured by the Modified Ashworth Scale, or MAS, scores of wrist flexors at four weeks after the injection compared to the scores before treatment. The changes in the wrist flexor MAS assessed by the investigator at four weeks after treatment compared to the baseline in the per protocol analysis group for the primary efficacy assessment were -1.44±0.72 points and -1.46±0.77 points in the Nabota and Botox group, respectively. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant decreases (p<0.0001) in muscle tension as measured on the MAS. The difference between the Nabota and Botox groups was 0.0129, with a 95% confidence interval (-0.2062, 0.2319). Since the upper limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval of the difference in changes was 0.2319, Nabota was found to be non-inferior to Botox. As a secondary endpoint, the average change in muscle tension as measured on the MAS of both groups as compared to baseline, when measured at week 8 and week 12, remained statistically significant at all points in time.

After administration of the treatment, adverse events occurred in 19.6% of the subjects in the Nabota group and 19.4% of the subjects in the Botox group. Adverse drug reactions occurred in 3.1% of the subjects in the Nabota group and in 4.1% of the subjects in the Botox group. There was one serious adverse event, a radius fracture that occurred in the Nabota group, which was assessed as not study drug-related. Botulinum neutralizing antibody testing was conducted using mouse bio-assay, and there were no “positive” subjects found in either group. Nabota is now approved for post-stroke upper limb spasticity in South Korea.

Daewoong South Korean Clinical Development for Blepharospasm

Daewoong has conducted a blepharospasm Phase 2/3 comparator study in South Korea. It was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, active drug controlled, Phase 3 clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of Nabota to Botox. This study was the basis for registration and approval of Nabota with the MFDS for the blepharospasm indication in South Korea. Patients diagnosed with facial spasms prior to the start date of the study and found to be eligible based on the screening test result were randomized to either Nabota or Botox. Treatment consisted of intramuscular injections into the medial and lateral pretarsal orbicularis oculi of the upper lid and lateral pretarsal orbicularis oculi of the lower lid of up to 46.88± 9.46 units of Nabota or 46.86± 9.46 units of Botox; the total dose depended on the severity of the spasms. In order to assess efficacy and safety after the treatment, follow-up visits were performed at four, eight and 12 weeks.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to change patients’ lives by enhancing the therapeutic botulinum toxin treatment paradigm for patients suffering from debilitating conditions. To achieve this goal, we plan to:

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe the successful pursuit of our strategy will be driven by the following competitive strengths:

Manufacturing

Daewoong is our sole supplier of ABP-450. Daewoong has over 70 years of experience manufacturing pharmaceutical products and is one of the largest pharmaceutical drug companies in South Korea. Daewoong recently constructed a facility in South Korea for the purposes of producing ABP-450 drug product, which was purpose-built to comply with FDA and EMA regulations. We believe this facility will be sufficient to meet demand for ABP-450 for the foreseeable future. The FDA conducted a cGMP and pre-approval inspection of the facility from November 8 to November 17, 2017. The United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency also completed an inspection of the manufacturing facility in February 2018 in connection with Evolus’ MAA for Jeuveau. Evolus’ FDA approval of Jeuveau in February 2019 included approval to manufacture Jeuveau at Daewoong’s facility. A separate pre-licensure inspection may be required for any BLA we submit for any of our product candidates and we believe that Daewoong’s manufacturing facility is, and will remain, compliant with FDA and EMA cGMP requirements.

While Jeuveau and ABP-450 are both manufactured by Daewoong, both we and Evolus retain separate, independent oversight rights related to Daewoong’s compliance with cGMP, standards specified by good manufacturing practice, and all other applicable regulatory guidelines and requirements. Evolus retains independent oversight and responsibility for the quality and pharmacovigilance of Jeuveau under its BLA and related international approvals; similarly, we retain independent oversight and responsibility for the quality and pharmacovigilance of ABP-450 under our original BLA, if approved.

Daewoong manufactures the ABP-450 drug substance in a separate facility on the same campus. The manufacture of ABP-450 drug substance is based on the fermentation of Daewoong’s C. botulinum cell line, followed by isolation and purification of the drug substance. Daewoong has received a United States patent for the production process.

Daewoong is a defendant in several lawsuits brought by Medytox, alleging, among other things, that Daewoong stole Medytox’s botulinum toxin bacterial strain and misappropriated trade secrets of Medytox, including those used by Daewoong to manufacture ABP-450. Daewoong is also a respondent to a complaint made by Medytox and Allergan to the United States ITC, containing

substantially similar allegations regarding the alleged theft of Medytox’s botulinum toxin bacterial strain and misappropriation of Medytox’s trade secrets, which is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We were also a defendant in the lawsuit brought by Medytox in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting allegations that are substantially similar to those in the Korea Litigation. In June 2021, we settled all outstanding claims with Medytox and entered into a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing, irrevocable license that permits us to commercialize and manufacture ABP-450. See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties — A material breach by us of the terms of our license and settlement agreement with Medytox could have a material adverse effect on our business.”

Daewoong License and Supply Agreement

On September 30, 2013, Evolus, which we then wholly owned, entered into a license and supply agreement with Daewoong, pursuant to which Daewoong agreed to manufacture and supply Jeuveau and grant Evolus an exclusive license for cosmetic indications to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale and otherwise commercialize and exploit Jeuveau in certain territories. In addition, Evolus paid $1.0 million to Daewoong as consideration for the option to expand the exclusive license to include therapeutic indications. In September 2018, we exercised the option to obtain the therapeutic rights for the territory and remitted the option exercise price of $7.5 million directly to Daewoong.

On December 20, 2019, we entered into the Daewoong Agreement, pursuant to which Daewoong agreed to manufacture and supply ABP-450 and grant us an exclusive license for therapeutic indications to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale, and otherwise commercialize or exploit ABP-450 in the United States and its territories and possessions, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and South Africa, which we refer to collectively as the “covered territories.”

Daewoong has agreed to exclusively supply us with, and we have agreed to exclusively obtain from Daewoong all of our requirements of ABP-450 at agreed-upon transfer prices, with no milestone or royalty payments and no minimum purchase requirements. Daewoong is responsible for all costs related to the manufacturing of ABP-450, including costs related to the operation and upkeep of its manufacturing facility, and we are responsible for all costs related to obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval, including clinical expenses, and commercialization of ABP-450. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to: (i) obtain all regulatory approvals necessary for ABP-450 to be marketed and commercialized in the covered territories for therapeutic indications and (ii) commercialize ABP-450 in the covered territories for therapeutic indications. During the term of the Daewoong Agreement, we cannot purchase, sell or distribute any injectable botulinum toxin that is launched in the covered territories after the effective date of the Daewoong Agreement other than ABP-450 in the covered territories or sell ABP-450 outside a covered territory.

Under the Daewoong Agreement, Daewoong grants us an exclusive, irrevocable, sub-licensable, assignable, fully paid-up license during the term to use Daewoong’s trademarks to Nabota in our commercialization and related obligations surrounding marketing authorizations of ABP-450 for therapeutic uses in the covered territories.

The initial term of the Daewoong Agreement is from December 20, 2019 to the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the grant of approval from the relevant governmental authority necessary to market and sell ABP-450 in the covered territories or (ii) December 20, 2029, and automatically renews for unlimited additional three-year terms thereafter, provided the Daewoong Agreement is not earlier terminated. The Daewoong Agreement will terminate upon written notice (A) by either us or Daewoong upon a continuing default that remains uncured within 90 days (or 30 days for a payment default) by the other party, or (B) immediately upon written notice if the breach is not capable of cure; (C) upon any of the following without notice: (i) our bankruptcy, insolvency or a petition for either, (ii) our assignment of our business or the Daewoong Agreement in whole or in part for the benefit of creditors, (iii) appointment of a receiver over any of our assets not vacated in sixty days, or (iv) filing of any other petition based upon our alleged bankruptcy or insolvency not dismissed within ninety days, or (D) our failure to commercialize or conduct clinical studies related to ABP-450 for a six month period. In the event the license is terminated for either of the reasons listed in (C) or (D) of the foregoing sentence, Daewoong will have the right to buy our intellectual property and data, which represents the majority of AEON’s valuable assets, for one dollar ($1.00), which right will terminate in the event Daewoong sells more than fifty percent (50%) of its ownership (inclusive of shares received in connection with the conversion of the Convertible Notes).

We will be the sole owner of any marketing authorization we pursue related to therapeutic indications of ABP-450 in a covered territory. This will include ownership of any BLA that we may submit to the FDA, MAA that we may submit to the EMA, NDS that we may submit to Health Canada, and any other approvals we receive in a covered territory. However, if we do not renew the

Daewoong Agreement or upon termination of the Daewoong Agreement due to a breach by us, we are obligated to transfer our rights to Daewoong.

The Daewoong Agreement also provides that Daewoong will indemnify us for any losses arising out of Daewoong’s willful misconduct or gross negligence in performing its obligations under the agreement, Daewoong’s breach of the agreement, or any allegation that ABP-450 or Daewoong’s trademark infringes or misappropriates the rights of a third party, except, in each case, as a result of our willful misconduct or gross negligence. We have agreed to indemnify Daewoong for any losses arising out of our willful misconduct or gross negligence in performing our obligations under the agreement, or our breach of the agreement, except, in each case, as a result of Daewoong’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.

For more information associated with this and other risks, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Intellectual Property and Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties.” Following the settlement between us and Medytox, on July 29, 2022, we amended the Daewoong Agreement and agreed to release any potential indemnification claims associated with the Company’s settlement with Medytox.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection related to our product candidate in our proposed therapeutic indications, novel methods of use, and other know-how and for future product candidates. Our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary or intellectual property rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary and intellectual property rights will be important to our performance. We protect, and will continue to protect, our proprietary technology and methods by, among other methods, filing United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, methods of use, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business as well as by maintaining trade secret protection and through other confidentiality procedures. In November 2023, the Company was issued a patent for its treatment paradigm (U.S. Patent No. 11,826,405) involving fewer injections than the current botulinum toxin treatment option for migraine. Although we own pending United States patent applications related to ABP-450, with the exception of our treatment paradigm patent, such pending applications have not issued as a patent, and we do not otherwise own or in-license any issued patents in or outside the United States.

Under the Daewoong Agreement, Daewoong agreed to exclusively manufacture and supply ABP-450 to us and grant us an exclusive license for therapeutic indications to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale and otherwise commercialize and exploit ABP-450 in the covered territories. Daewoong has a United States patent on its proprietary botulinum toxin manufacturing process for ABP-450. At this time, we own one issued patent, six pending Patent Cooperation Treaty international patent applications, no pending United States provisional patents and six pending United States nonprovisional patent applications related to ABP-450, including certain novel methods and protocols of injecting for the treatment of migraine and gastroparesis. If issued, these patents would expire in 2040. We also rely on know-how, copyright, trademarks, and trade secret laws to protect our proprietary advancements and competitive advantage. Such protection is also maintained using confidentiality agreements.

It is possible that our current pending patents, or patents which we may later acquire or license may be successfully challenged or invalidated in whole or in part. It is also possible that we may not obtain issued patents from our pending patent applications or other inventions we seek to protect. Due to uncertainties inherent in prosecuting patent applications, it is possible that our pending patent applications will be rejected. It is also possible that we may develop proprietary products or technologies in the future that are not patentable or that the patents of others will limit or altogether preclude our ability to do business. In addition, any patent issued to us may provide us with little or no competitive advantage, in which case we may abandon such patent or license it to another entity. Additionally, we own trademark applications in the United States for AEON & Design, AEON BIOPHARMA & Design and AEON BIOPHARMA, which have been refused registration at the Trademark Office on the grounds of an alleged likelihood of confusion with prior registrations for AEON and EON owed by a third party for nutritional supplements. We have filed a petition to cancel the third party marks with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

In addition to our reliance on patent protection for ABP-450 and future product candidates, we also rely on our and our licensors’ trade secrets, know-how, confidentiality agreements and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information and trade secrets, including through contractual means with our employees and consultants, these agreements may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, third parties may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or disclose our technology. As a result, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. It is

our policy to require our employees, consultants, and other third parties to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual or entity during the course of the party’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived of by the individual during the course of employment, and which relate to or are reasonably capable or being used in our current or planned business or R&D are our exclusive property. However, such agreements and any security policies may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for such breaches. For more information, see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovation. It also requires, among other things, the ability to effectively discover, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for novel products, as well as the ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products, including communicating the effectiveness, safety and value of products to actual and prospective customers and medical professionals. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of products competitive with those that we are developing. Many of our competitors have greater resources than we have. This enables them, among other things, to leverage their financial resources to make greater R&D, marketing and promotion investments than us. Our competitors may also have more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Our technologies and products may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors.

As more companies develop new intellectual property in our markets, the possibility of a competitor acquiring patent or other rights that may limit our products or potential products increases, which could lead to litigation. In addition to product development, testing, approval and promotion, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include industry consolidation, product quality and price, product technology, reputation, customer service and access to technical information.

We are currently focusing our clinical efforts on the use of botulinum toxins to treat migraine, cervical dystonia, and gastroparesis and expect to pursue indications to treat other therapeutic conditions. We expect to compete directly with other injectable botulinum toxins and other pharmaceuticals that are currently utilized and being developed for each of these disease states.

Injectable Botulinum Toxins

Our primary competitors for ABP-450 in the injectable botulinum toxin pharmaceutical market for therapeutic use are Botox, Dysport, Xeomin, Myobloc, a type-B botulinum toxin serotype marketed by U.S. WorldMeds, and Revance’s botulinum toxin, Daxxify. Revance has entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Viatris Inc., to develop and commercialize a biosimilar to Botox. Each of Botox, Dysport, Xeomin, Myobloc and Daxxify are approved by the FDA for the treatment of cervical dystonia. Botox is currently the only botulinum toxin approved for the treatment of chronic migraine, although we believe that a clinical study is being conducted to evaluate Dysport for the treatment of chronic migraine. There are no approved botulinum toxins approved for the treatment of gastroparesis and, to our knowledge, there are no active clinical studies evaluating the potential of another neurotoxin to treat gastroparesis.

We are aware of competing botulinum toxins currently being developed or commercialized in the United States, the European Union, Asia, South America, and other markets. While some of these products may not meet United States regulatory standards, the companies operating in these markets may be able to produce products at a lower cost than United States and European manufacturers. In addition to the injectable botulinum toxin dose forms, we are aware that other companies are developing topical botulinum toxins for therapeutic indications.

Preventative Treatment of Migraine

Beta Blockers, Anti-Epileptics, and Triptans

Botox is approved for the preventative treatment of chronic migraine and certain other agents are used as first-and second-line treatments for the prevention of migraine, including triptans, beta blockers, and anti-epileptics.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)

We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from companies that provide treatment options with other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical products. For the preventative treatment of chronic migraine, we will face competition from CGRP agonists, including Aimovig (erenumab) marketed by Amgen Inc., Ajovy (fremenezumab) marketed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Emgality (galcenezumab) marketed by Eli Lilly and Company. Each of Aimovig, Ajovy and Emgality are self-administered by a monthly subcutaneous injection. In 2020, Vyepti (eptinezumab) marketed by Lundbeck A/S was approved for the prevention of migraine and is administered every 3 months by intravenous infusion. In addition, Qulipta (atogepant) marketed by AbbVie and Nurtec ODT (rimegepant) marketed by Pfizer Inc. have recently been approved for the prevention of migraine via once-daily, orally administered products in 2021 and 2023, respectively. The FDA has also accepted a New Drug Application for vazegepant, marketed by Pfizer Inc., to be used as an intranasal formulation for both the acute treatment and prevention of migraine. If approved, this therapy will be commercially available for the treatment of migraine prior to ABP-450. Notably, initial positive data has been published studying the reduction in migraine days when a botulinum toxin is used in combination with CGRP, suggesting that combination therapy could provide further reduction in MMD than either botulinum toxin or CGRPs alone.

Other Treatments

We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from companies that provide treatment options with other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical products. For the treatment of cervical dystonia, in addition to other injectable botulinum toxins, we will face competition from orally administered anticholinergic, GABA receptor agonist, benzodiazepine, dopaminergic and anticonvulsant pharmaceuticals. For the treatment of gastroparesis, we will face competition from prokinetic agents, including REGLAN (IV administered metoclopramide) and Gimoti (nasal spray metoclopramide), which are the only medications currently approved by FDA for the treatment of gastroparesis.

Government Regulation

We operate in a highly regulated industry that is subject to significant federal, state, local and foreign regulation. Our business has been, and will continue to be, subject to a variety of laws including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, among others. Biological products or “biologics,” which are the focus of our business, are subject to regulation under the FFDCA and PHS Act. Our products, if approved, will be regulated as biologics. With this classification, commercial production of our products will need to occur in registered and licensed facilities in compliance with cGMP for biologics. Among other things, biologics require clinical studies to demonstrate product safety and efficacy (i.e., that the product is safe, pure and potent), and the submission and approval of a BLA for marketing authorization. Also, various federal and state laws govern the R&D, testing, investigation, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, regulatory approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of these products. Failure to comply with applicable United States requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending license or marketing applications, warning letters, enforcement actions, import alerts or detentions, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, withdrawal of approval, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

United States Biological Products Development Process

The process required by the FDA before a biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Nonclinical Studies

Biological product development in the United States typically involves nonclinical or “preclinical” (e.g., laboratory or animal) testing. Nonclinical tests often include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal studies to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the nonclinical tests must comply with applicable federal regulations and requirements including GLPs, among other requirements. The results of initial nonclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, any relevant prior clinical experience, and a proposed clinical study protocol. Additional nonclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted and generally must be included in the BLA.

Clinical Studies

Prior to beginning the first clinical study with a product candidate, a sponsor must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol or protocols for preclinical and clinical studies. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product, chemistry, manufacturing and controls information, and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. For clinical studies in the United States or otherwise regulated by the FDA, a 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has not raised questions or concerns relating to the IND and placed the IND on clinical hold within this 30-day period, the clinical study proposed in the IND may begin. If the FDA does place the IND on clinical hold, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns to the FDA’s satisfaction before the clinical study can begin.

Our clinical studies for our ABP-450 product candidate will involve the administration of the investigational biologic to subjects under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators. Clinical studies must be conducted pursuant to an IND and in compliance with state and federal regulations and GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of subjects and to define the roles of clinical study sponsors, administrators, and monitors, as well as under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on United States subjects and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical study at any time or impose other requirements or sanctions if it believes that the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical study subjects. The clinical study protocol, any protocol amendments, and informed consent information for subjects in clinical studies must also be submitted to an IRB for approval. An IRB may require the clinical study at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions before approving the study for initiation. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent form that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative, and the IRB must monitor the clinical study until completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing preclinical and clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including biologics, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Human clinical studies are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Concurrent with clinical studies, companies may complete additional nonclinical studies and develop additional information about the biological characteristics of the product candidate and must finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMPs and also CMC requirements that are approved as part of the BLA. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the finished product. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Biological License Applications (BLAs)

Pursuant to the PHS Act Section 351, in order to market a biological product, an entity must submit and receive approval of a BLA based on a demonstration that (a) the biological product that is the subject of the application is safe, pure, and potent; and (b) the facility in which the biological product is manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to assure that the biological product continues to be safe, pure, and potent. When an FDA application is approved in the first instance, it is an “original BLA” which is assigned a BLA number by the FDA.

An approved “original” BLA may be supplemented (amended) to incorporate changes. Specifically, FDA regulations state that an applicant holding a BLA “shall submit a supplement,” and receive FDA approval of a supplement, before implementing the addition of a new indication, and other changes that may have a substantial potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of the product. When approved, the supplement incorporates the changes into the BLA under the original BLA number. It is also possible that an applicant may, in some cases, submit a separate original application instead of a supplement based on intended changes and discussions with FDA. However, if an entity does not hold a BLA, a supplement would not be an option.

A BLA holder is legally responsible for all regulatory obligations associated with the BLA, including each supplement thereto, and is the only party that would be authorized to submit a supplement. If an entity does not hold a BLA, it does not hold an application to supplement, and would generally need to submit an original BLA. Companies typically submit a BLA sometime after they have developed data necessary to support the safety, purity, and potency (safety and effectiveness) for labeled indication(s) and method(s) of use. We expect to submit our original BLA after such data has been developed. From an FDA regulatory perspective, we believe we will be eligible to submit an original BLA for our product candidate (ABP-450) because we do not hold a BLA for ABP-450 that we could supplement. As such, an original BLA would be the appropriate option for our first BLA submission. For clarity, although we will not physically manufacture products (the product will be produced by Daewoong), FDA recognizes that separate parties can serve as a BLA holder for a product (responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance) and the physical manufacturer that will produce for a BLA holder pursuant to contract (i.e., a “contract manufacturer”). Thus we plan to submit, and ultimately hold, an approved original BLA for the ABP-450 product that is contract manufactured by Daewoong.

We are aware that a separate legal entity — Evolus — markets a product called Jeuveau (prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs), also manufactured by Daewoong, which is very similar to our ABP-450 product, but has been approved for cosmetic indications. We are developing ABP-450 for therapeutic (not cosmetic) indications, will be marketing under a different trade name, and may potentially incorporate other changes. Evolus and AEON are distinct legal entities, will maintain their own manufacturing arrangements with Daewoong, and will market products with different indications and trade names, at minimum. As such, we believe it is appropriate that we maintain separate and distinct regulatory obligations for ABP-450, which would be accomplished by submitting and receiving approval for an original BLA.

The form of BLA approval is pertinent because payors will generally consider the pricing for all products falling under the same BLA together when calculating reimbursement rates. Notably, Medicare Part B payments for prescription drugs factor in prices for all versions of a drug, even when certain versions of the drug may be used primarily in situations that are not covered by the program (such as cosmetic applications). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, has interpreted the Medicare statute to require that: (1) all versions of a product listed under the same BLA must be considered the same drug or biological, for payments made under Section 1847A of the Social Security Act, and (2) for a product marketed under the same approval number, labeling that indicates that a version may be used primarily when the drug is not covered under Part B (e.g., the version is for self-administration only, or for cosmetic use) cannot be used as a basis to exclude that version from a payment amount calculation.

In the event we are not able to obtain an original BLA, we may not be able to ensure the consistent pricing that we believe an original BLA would offer, and the ASP of our products could be adversely affected.

BLA Submission and Marketing Approval

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, a BLA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the BLA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The BLA must include the results of all nonclinical, clinical and other testing, and a compilation of data relating to the product’s CMCs. The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. The submission of most BLAs is additionally subject to a substantial application fee, and the sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual program fees.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review, and such decision could result in a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of BLAs. The FDA’s goal is to review standard applications within ten months after it accepts the application for filing, or, if the application qualifies for priority review, six months after the FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation will direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for products that, if approved, would be significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions compared to available therapies. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether a product candidate is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed and held meets regulatory standards designed to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, potency, quality, and purity. The FDA may also refer applications for novel biologics products or biologics products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee but often follows some or all of its recommendations.

In addition to the above, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA applicant, absent a deferment or waiver, must develop a pediatric development plan and, potentially, conduct pediatric studies prior to submission of the BLA.

Pre-licensure inspections are often conducted at one or more clinical study sites, and may be conducted at nonclinical testing sites as well. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the biological product is manufactured prior to approval. The FDA will not approve the BLA unless it determines that compliance with cGMP is satisfactory. Manufacturers of biologics also must comply with the FDA’s general biological product standards and approved CMC requirements.

After the FDA evaluates the BLA and information from any pre-licensure inspections or other data sources, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, including additional large-scale clinical testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to the goal of reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the finished biological product within the United States with specific labeling (e.g., prescribing information) for specific indications. As a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety or efficacy and may impose other conditions, including labeling restrictions, which can materially affect the product’s potential market and profitability. For example, the FDA may approve the BLA with REMS to ensure the benefits of the product continue to outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems or safety issues are identified following initial marketing. The FDA may require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, ingredients or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented.

A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

Any marketing application for a biologic submitted to the FDA for approval may be eligible for FDA programs intended to expedite the FDA review and approval process, such as priority review, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, and accelerated approval.

A product is eligible for priority review, or review within a six-month timeframe from the date a complete BLA is accepted for filing, if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biological product designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

In addition, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If a product is so designated, the FDA will take certain actions, such as holding timely meetings and providing advice, intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Additionally, products that may fulfill an unmet medical need and are studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled Phase 4 post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Failure to confirm efficacy in post-marketing studies or otherwise comply with the conditions of accelerated approval could result in withdrawal of approval. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review and approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, priority review, fast track designation, and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Biologic manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of biologics. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturers’ communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

In addition to the FDA’s post-approval requirements, various state laws governing manufacturing, marketing, and distribution often apply, and state licenses may need to be obtained and renewed on a periodic basis in order to continue operations in specific states.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The ACA, signed into law in 2010, includes a subtitle called the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alteration or switch. Interchangeable biosimilars may be substituted for original BLA biologics at the pharmacy level, state pharmacy laws permitting.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until twelve years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. A reference biological product is granted twelve years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product, that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. During this twelve-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing that applicant’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of its product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products.

A biologic can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study. In some instances, the same studies can satisfy both PREA and pediatric exclusivity requirements.

The BPCIA is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, government proposals have sought to reduce the twelve-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation, and impact of the BPCIA is subject to uncertainty.

Government Regulation in Europe

In the EEA (which is composed of the 27 Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein), medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of MAs:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Data and marketing exclusivity. In the EEA, new products authorized for marketing, or reference products, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical study data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the European Union during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the European Union. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the European Union until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the European Union. The 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

Pediatric investigation plan. In the EEA, marketing authorization applications for new medicinal products not authorized have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in

adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical study data can be waived by the PDCO when the data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all Member States of the European Union and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension.

Clinical studies. Clinical studies of medicinal products in the European Union must be conducted in accordance with European Union and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on GCPs. Additional GCP guidelines from the European Commission, focusing in particular on traceability, apply to clinical studies of advanced therapy medicinal products. If the sponsor of the clinical study is not established within the European Union, it must appoint an entity within the European Union to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical study insurance policy, and in most European Union countries, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical study.

Prior to commencing a clinical study, the sponsor must obtain a clinical trial authorization from the competent authority, and a positive opinion from an independent ethics committee. The application for a clinical trial authorization must include, among other things, a copy of the study protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. Currently, clinical trial authorization applications must be submitted to the competent authority in each EU Member State in which the study will be conducted.

Under the new Regulation on Clinical Trials, which took effect in 2022, there is now in place a centralized application procedure where one national authority takes the lead in reviewing the application and the other national authorities have only a limited involvement. Any substantial changes to the study protocol or other information submitted with the clinical trial applications must be notified to or approved by the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees. Medicines used in clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP.

The European Union requirements for research and investigation, approval, and post-market activities, may vary substantially from United States requirements. As such, approval in one jurisdiction is not predictive of potential for approval in the other jurisdiction.

Product Approval Process Outside the United States and Europe

In addition to regulations in the United States and European Union, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing manufacturing, clinical studies, commercial sales, and distribution of our future products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval or MA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain approval of the product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before commencing clinical studies or marketing in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval or MA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, post-market activities and obligations, enforcement mechanisms, penalties for violation in the event of noncompliance, pricing, and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country.

United States Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business that may constrain the financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as sell, market, and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing authorization. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations related to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare providers. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and responsible individuals may be subject to imprisonment.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidate for which we may seek regulatory approval. Sales in the United States will depend, in part, on the availability of sufficient coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, which include government health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the 340B Drug Discount program, TRICARE, and the Veterans Administration, as well as managed care organizations and private health insurers. Prices at which we or our customers seek reimbursement for our product candidates can be subject to challenge, reduction or denial by third-party payors. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product is typically separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be available. Additionally, in the United States there is no uniform policy among payors for coverage or reimbursement. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies, but also have their own methods and approval processes. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, successful commercialization of, and obtaining a satisfactory financial return on, any product we develop may not be possible.

Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for marketing, we may need to conduct expensive studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of any products, which would be in addition to the costs expended to obtain regulatory approvals. Third-party payors may not consider our product candidates to be medically necessary or cost-effective compared to other available therapies or the rebate percentages required to secure favorable coverage may not yield an adequate margin over cost or may not enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in drug development.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect the ability to profitably sell product candidates for which marketing approval is obtained. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. The ACA, enacted in March 2010, has substantially changed healthcare financing and delivery by both governmental and private insurers. Among other things, the ACA included the following provisions:

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are undergoing or have undergone legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court and members of Congress have introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute will remain in effect through the first 6 months of 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. These reductions were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and phased-in again on April 1, 2022 (between April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022, a 1% cut took effect, with a 2% cut in place for the remainder of 2022). The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 partially mitigated more severe Medicare pay cuts previously scheduled to begin on January 1, 2023; physician payment rates were reduced by 2% in 2023, and were reduced by 3.4% in 2024. On January 2, 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. Notably, on August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” (IRA) into law, incorporating many key provisions of the “Build Back Better Act”. Prescription drug price reform is a focal point of this landmark legislation that incorporates many proposals advanced over the last decade to overhaul drug costs under the Medicare program. Key provisions of the law permit CMS to negotiate Part D drug prices for an increasing number of drugs over a five-year period, replace the Medicare Coverage Gap Discount Program with a new Manufacturer Refund Program for drugs not subject to negotiation, and redesign the Part D benefit to eliminate the coverage gap and realign the cost responsibility in the initial and catastrophic phases of coverage among payors, manufacturers, Government and patients (capping out-of-pocket costs at US$2,000 starting in 2025). In addition, the law penalizes drug manufacturers for price increases that outpace the rate of inflation (for products under Medicare Parts D/B).

The IRA follows years of attempts by the federal government to reform and/or control drug pricing. For example, at the federal level, the previous administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 included a US$135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. The Biden administration has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Additionally, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical study and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical studies and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Another potential area of further healthcare reform is the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which was created by Congress in 1992 to “stretch scarce Federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services.” Drug manufacturers are incentivized to participate in this program as any manufacturer who wants their medication covered by Medicaid must also provide a discount to 340B covered entities, which includes a variety of healthcare entities that must abide by certain eligibility criteria in order to participate. This program requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to eligible entities at a significantly discounted price which can result in savings between 20-50% or more.

Growth of the 340B program has continued to accelerate as more entities participate in the program and, thus, more patients qualify for 340B drugs. The value of the drug purchases by covered entities through the 340B program has grown exponentially year-over-year, with 2022 data indicating that discounted drugs purchased through the 340B program reached approximately $53.7 billion annually. In the last decade drug manufacturers have opposed the 340B program publicly, as the program has experienced significant growth which corresponds to greater lost revenue potential for the manufacturers. There is a high degree of legal, legislative and public scrutiny as manufacturers have challenged some aggressive covered entity practices in litigation (with mixed success) and legislative reform proposals seek great transparency and accountability by the participating entities. Nonetheless, there is general industry consensus that the program will remain available in the long-term and there is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to have a material impact on the financial performance of manufacturers as program growth further erodes manufacturer revenue.

Data Privacy and Security Laws and Regulations

We are also subject to data privacy and security regulation by the federal government, states and non- United States jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. For example, HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” those independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain, transmit, or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state and non-United States laws govern the privacy and security of health and other personal information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities now and in the future could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from reimbursement under government programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

For more on the risks associated with data privacy and security, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Government Regulation — We are subject to stringent and often unsettled privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations could adversely affect our business.”

Employees

As of December 31, 2023, we had ten employees. Our employees are primarily located in Irvine, California, although we also have employees who work remotely from Northern California. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement, and we believe our relations with our employees are good.

Facilities

Our principal executive office is located at 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750, Irvine, California 92614. In September 2021, we entered into a lease agreement for 8,000 square feet of office space located at this facility, with a lease term of 36 months beginning in December 2021 and ending in December 2024. We may look for additional or alternate space for our operations, and we believe that suitable additional or alternative space will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

Legal Proceedings

On September 18, 2023, Odeon Capital Group LLC (“Odeon”) filed a lawsuit against us in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that we failed to pay Odeon’s deferred underwriting fee of $1.25 million. Odeon claims that it served as the underwriter for Priveterra Acquisition Corp., the special purpose acquisition company with which Old AEON merged with and into in July 2023. Odeon seeks monetary damages for the full amount of its claimed underwriting fee, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other amounts. On November 16, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss certain claims included in Odeon’s complaint.

​

Item 1A. Risk Factors

RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below and the other information in this report before making an investment in our common stock or warrants. Our business, financial condition, results of operations, or prospects could be materially and adversely affected if any of these risks occurs, and as a result, the market price of our common stock and warrants could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. This report also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Our actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those set forth below.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations and Financial Position

We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. If we ever achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain it.

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Old AEON was originally incorporated in 2012 but did not begin focusing its efforts and financial resources on the clinical development and regulatory approval of ABP-450 for therapeutic indications until 2019. The operating history upon which investors must evaluate our business and prospects is limited. Consequently, any predictions about our future success, performance or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of commercial operations. In addition, as an organization, we have limited experience and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical market. To date, we have not obtained any regulatory approvals for ABP-450 or generated any revenue from product sales relating to therapeutic uses of ABP-450.

Because we have not yet received regulatory approvals, we are not permitted to market ABP-450 for therapeutic use in the United States or in any other territory, and as such, we have not generated any revenue from sales of ABP-450 to date. We have recorded losses from operations of $29.6 million, income of $29.6 million and loss of $48.4 million for the periods January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor), July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) and for the year ended December 31, 2022, respectively; and we have net losses of $60.7 million, income of $24.0 million and loss of $52.6 million for the periods January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor), July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) and for the year ended December 31, 2022, respectively. As a result of our ongoing losses, as of December 31, 2023 (Successor), we had an accumulated deficit of $473.6 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to seek regulatory approval for, and begin to commercialize, ABP-450, if approved. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenues. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity (deficit) and working capital. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses, or when, if at all, we will be able to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, may adversely affect the market price of common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue operations.

Our management has concluded that uncertainties around our ability to raise additional capital raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We will require additional financing to fund our future operations. Any failure to obtain additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our operations.

We have concluded that we do not have sufficient cash to fund our operations and to meet our obligations as they become due within one year from the date that our consolidated financial statements are issued and as a result, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Our ability to continue as a going concern is an issue raised as a result of ongoing operating losses and a lack of financing commitments to meet cash requirements, and is subject to our ability to generate a profit or obtain appropriate financing from outside sources, including obtaining additional funding from the sale of our securities or obtaining loans from third parties where possible. We will need to raise additional capital to fund our operations. We cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The perception that we may not be able to continue as a going concern may materially limit our ability to raise additional funds through the issuance of new debt or equity securities or otherwise and no assurance can be given that sufficient funding will be available when needed to allow us to continue as a going concern. This perception may also make it more difficult to operate our business due to concerns about our ability to meet our contractual obligations. If we cannot continue as a going concern, we may have to liquidate our assets and may receive less than the value at which those assets are carried on our financial statements, and it is likely that our stockholders may lose some or all of their investment in us.

We expect that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future in order to complete development of and seek regulatory approval for ABP-450 for the treatment of migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis, identify future potential therapeutic applications for ABP-450 and establish sales and marketing capabilities to commercialize ABP-450 across any approved indications.

We expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan through June 2024, including $15 million of committed financing related to the issuance of certain Convertible Notes with Daewoong. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” We have based these estimates, however, on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could spend our available capital resources much faster than we currently expect or require more capital to fund our operations than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

If we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish certain valuable rights to our product candidate(s), technologies, future revenue streams or research programs or may have to grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we raise additional capital through public or private equity offerings or offerings of securities convertible into our equity, the ownership interest of stockholders will be diluted and the terms of any such securities may have a preference over our common stock. Debt financing, receivables financing and royalty financing may also be coupled with an equity component, such as warrants to purchase our capital stock, which could also result in dilution of our existing stockholders’ ownership, and such dilution may be material.

Additionally, if we raise additional capital through debt financing, we will have increased fixed payment obligations and may be subject to covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt or making capital expenditures to meet specified financial ratios, and other operational restrictions, any of which could restrict our ability to commercialize ABP-450 in our proposed therapeutic indications or to operate as a business and may result in liens being placed on our assets. If we were to default on any of our indebtedness, we could lose such assets. Additional funding may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. The global credit and financial markets have experienced volatility and disruptions recently, including diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates, and uncertainty about economic stability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly or more dilutive.

Our future success currently depends entirely on the successful and timely regulatory approval and commercialization of our only product candidate, ABP-450. The development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products is subject to extensive regulation, and we may not obtain regulatory approvals for ABP-450 in any of the indications for which we plan to develop it on a timely basis or at all.

Marketing approval of biologics in the United States requires the submission of a BLA to the FDA. A BLA must be supported by extensive clinical and preclinical data, as well as extensive information regarding pharmacology, chemistry, manufacturing and

controls. FDA approval of a BLA is not guaranteed, and the review and approval process is an expensive and uncertain process that may take several years. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the approval process.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize any product candidate in the United States or abroad, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, that our product candidate, ABP-450, is safe and effective for its intended uses. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe that the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates, including ABP-450, are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval for further development, manufacturing or commercialization of our product candidates by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program, requiring their alteration. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical studies that will be required for BLA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or the condition that the product candidate is designed to treat and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate.

The FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory authorities can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including the following:

If ABP-450 fails to demonstrate safety and efficacy in our clinical studies or does not gain approval in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, our business and results of operations will be materially and adversely harmed.

We are currently pursuing three main therapeutic indications for ABP-450, and our business presently depends entirely on our ability to obtain regulatory approvals for ABP-450 for our planned indications and to successfully commercialize it in a timely manner. To date, as an organization, we have completed one clinical study related to the therapeutic use of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia. In October 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The Phase 2 clinical trial for episodic migraine did not meet its primary endpoint, though it did show statistical significance on multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, including the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in monthly migraine days and 75% in monthly migraine days during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and improvements on certain patient and rating scales.

We have no biological products currently approved for sale and we may never be able to develop marketable products. We are not permitted to market ABP-450 in the United States unless we receive approval of a BLA from the FDA, in the European Union unless we receive approval of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, from the EMA, in Canada unless we receive approval of a new drug submission, or NDS, from Health Canada or in any other countries permitted under the Daewoong Agreement, unless we receive the requisite approval from the applicable regulatory authorities in such countries. We will need to conduct a significant amount of clinical testing before we receive regulatory approval for any of our planned indications, and we do not know if or when we will receive any such approvals or whether we will need to make modifications or significant additional expenditures to obtain any such approvals. We can provide no assurances that ABP-450 will be successful in clinical studies or will ultimately receive regulatory approval in any therapeutic indication. Even if ABP-450 demonstrates efficacy, our injection protocols, including the selection of injection sites and amount of product injected at each injection site, may produce negative or inconclusive results or may result in the

occurrence of serious adverse events. In addition, if we receive approval in one country for an indication, we may not receive a similar approval in any other jurisdiction, or in the same country for a different indication.

Even if regulatory approvals for one or more of our therapeutic indications are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize ABP-450. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities, including by obtaining approval for coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party and government payors, but we may not be successful in such a transition. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of ABP-450 in each of our therapeutic indications to continue our business.

Clinical product development involves a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. We may incur greater costs than we anticipate or encounter substantial delays or difficulties in our clinical studies.

We may not commercialize, market, promote or sell any product candidate without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agencies, and we may never receive such approvals.

Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. As a company, we are conducting and overseeing the conduct of preclinical and clinical studies of ABP-450 through contracts with CROs. We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical studies have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

In October 2023, we announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The Phase 2 clinical trial for episodic migraine did not meet its primary endpoint, though it did show statistical significance on multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, including the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in monthly migraine days and 75% in monthly migraine days during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and improvements on certain patient and rating scales.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events prior to, during, or as a result of, clinical studies that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or to commercialize ABP-450 in our proposed therapeutic indications, including the following:

Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue from future product sales or other sources. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to ABP-450, we may need to conduct additional testing to bridge our modified product candidate to earlier versions. Clinical study delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize ABP-450, if approved in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, or allow our competitors to bring competing products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize ABP-450 and may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, if the results of our clinical studies are inconclusive or if there are safety concerns or serious adverse events associated with ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, we may:

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical studies will begin as planned, need to be restructured or be completed on schedule, if at all. Additionally, the impacts of any public health outbreaks (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) on our projected milestones is uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence.

Further, we, the FDA, a foreign regulatory authority, an ethics committee or an institutional review board may suspend our clinical studies at any time if it appears that we or our collaborators are failing to conduct a study in accordance with regulatory requirements, including the FDA’s current Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations, that we are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agency finds deficiencies in our investigational new drug applications, or INDs, or clinical study applications, respectively, or the conduct of these studies. Moreover, to the extent our filing schedule for a new IND is dependent on further preclinical or manufacturing progress, we may not be able to file such INDs on the timelines we expect. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical studies. If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical studies, or if we terminate a clinical study prior to completion, the commercial prospects of ABP-450 could be negatively impacted, and our ability to generate revenue from ABP-450 may be delayed.

Additionally, certain of our scientific advisors or consultants who receive compensation from us are likely to be investigators for our future clinical studies. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA. The FDA may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical study site and the utility of the clinical study itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our

marketing applications by the FDA and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of ABP-450 in one or more indications. If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical study of ABP-450, the commercial prospects of ABP-450 will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. Moreover, any delays in completing our clinical studies will increase our costs, slow down our development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues which may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Enrollment and retention of patients in clinical studies is an expensive and time-consuming process and could be delayed, made more difficult or rendered impossible by multiple factors outside our control. If we experience delays or difficulties in enrolling patients in clinical studies, our receipt of necessary regulatory approval could be delayed or prevented.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in our clinical studies is critical to our success. The number of patients suffering from cervical dystonia is small and other indications we may pursue may have similarly small patient populations. We may encounter difficulties in enrolling patients in our clinical studies and may compete against other clinical studies for the same pool of potential patients, thereby delaying or preventing development and approval of ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications. For example, the activation of investigators and sites for our migraine prevention Phase 2 clinical study was initially slower than we expected. Even once enrolled, we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our studies on a timely basis or at all. Patient enrollment and retention in clinical studies depends on many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the study protocol, the existing body of safety and efficacy data, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical studies of competing therapies for the same indication, the proximity of patients to clinical study sites, the eligibility criteria for the study and other factors we may not be able to control that may limit patients, principal investigators or staff or clinical site availability.

Our clinical studies were, and may in the future be, affected by the COVID-19 pandemic or similar occurrences. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic caused us to delay enrollment in 2020 to institute new procedures for the safety of patients and investigators and may in the future further impact patient enrollment in our ongoing clinical studies.

Further, if patients drop out of our clinical studies, miss scheduled doses or follow-up visits, or otherwise fail to follow clinical study protocols, whether as a result of a public health outbreak or otherwise, the integrity of data from our clinical studies may be compromised or not accepted by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which would represent a significant setback for the applicable program.

Our efforts to build relationships with patient communities may not succeed, which could result in delays in patient enrollment in our clinical studies. Any negative results we may report in clinical studies of ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications may make it difficult or impossible to recruit and retain patients in other clinical studies of that same product candidate. Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention, whether as a result of a public health outbreak or otherwise, may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to develop ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications or could render further development impossible. In addition, we may rely on CROs and clinical study sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical studies and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to ensure their actual performance.

ABP-450 may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent its regulatory approval in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, limit its commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences following any potential marketing approval.

During the conduct of clinical studies, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries and discomforts, to their doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused or contributed to these conditions and regulatory authorities may draw different conclusions from us and require additional testing to confirm these determinations, if they occur. We are collecting data about ABP-450 from ongoing clinical and toxicology studies and any adverse events or undesirable side effects caused by, or other unexpected properties of, ABP-450 could cause us, any future collaborators, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, or ethics committee or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies of ABP-450 and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities.

In addition, it is possible that as we test ABP-450 in larger, longer and more extensive clinical studies, or as use of ABP-450 becomes more widespread if it receives regulatory approval for any of our proposed indications, that illnesses, injuries, discomforts

and other adverse events that were not observed in earlier studies conducted by us, or, in the case of ABP-450, by others using the same botulinum toxin, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous studies, will be reported by subjects or patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in large-scale pivotal studies or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. If additional clinical experience indicates that ABP-450 has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, the development of ABP-450 in that indication may fail or be delayed. Additionally, there is the risk that as botulinum toxins other than ABP-450 are approved for and studied in connection with a broader range of diseases and conditions and across a more diverse population, additional safety signals and other adverse events may be identified. All botulinum toxin products are required to include a class labeling that contains a boxed warning related to safety and we could be required to include additional warnings on our product labeling, if approved.

If ABP-450 receives regulatory approval, and we or others identify undesirable side effects of ABP-450, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, such as regulatory authorities revoking such approval or imposing additional restrictions on the marketing and promotion of the product, or we may be required to recall the product or implement changes to the way the product is administered.

We could also be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients, which could hinder commercial acceptance of ABP-450 and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Results of other parties’ clinical studies involving the same or a nearly identical botulinum toxin complex as ABP-450, or results in any preclinical studies we conduct, may not be predictive of future results of our clinical studies.

Success in clinical studies conducted by Daewoong and Evolus, Inc., or Evolus, involving a botulinum toxin that is identical or nearly identical to ABP-450 does not ensure that any clinical studies we conduct using ABP-450 will be successful and we will still need to submit our independently generated data to applicable regulatory agencies to support regulatory approval of ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications. Similarly, success in any preclinical studies or clinical studies that we conduct will not ensure that later clinical studies will be successful. A number of companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical studies, even after positive results in earlier preclinical studies and earlier clinical studies. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies, including previously unreported adverse events. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks.

Additionally, our clinical studies may utilize an “open-label” trial design. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate for either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical studies test only the investigational product candidate and may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical studies are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical studies are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical studies may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical studies may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical studies are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

Interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical studies that we may announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, topline or preliminary data from our clinical studies as we are expecting to do with the chronic cohort of our Phase 2 migraine study in the second quarter of 2024, which are based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a full analysis of all data related to the particular study. Interim and preliminary data for the studies we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues or more patient data become available. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. Interim, topline and preliminary data also remains subject to audit and verification

procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data previously published. As a result, the interim, topline, or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated, and any interim, topline or preliminary data should be viewed with caution until final data is available. Material adverse changes in the final data could result in significant harm to our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of our product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical study is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular pharmaceutical or biological product, pharmaceutical or biological product candidate or our business. If the interim, topline or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize our product candidate in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

Due to our limited resources and access to capital, we must prioritize development of certain therapeutic uses of ABP-450; these decisions may prove to be wrong and may adversely affect our business.

While our initial focus is on the development and approval of ABP-450 for the treatment of migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis, a key element of our strategy is to identify additional conditions for which ABP-450 may be an effective therapy. However, there can be no assurances that we will be successful in identifying such conditions. Even if we are successful in identifying such conditions, we may experience difficulties in identifying a proper treatment regimen, or we may fail to secure regulatory approval for a particular indication. If we are unable to gain regulatory approval for indications in addition to the indications for the treatment of migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis on which we are currently focused, or if FDA or other regulatory agencies require us to pursue a narrower indication than we have currently identified, we may be limited in our ability to grow our business.

Efforts to identify and pursue additional therapeutic uses of ABP-450 require substantial technical, financial and human resources, regardless of whether they are ultimately successful. Because we have limited financial and personnel resources, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with potential target indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential or a greater likelihood of success. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential therapeutic uses of ABP-450 that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

We may not be successful in obtaining an original BLA that contemplates exclusively therapeutic uses of ABP-450.

In order to market a biological product, an entity must submit and receive approval of a BLA. When a BLA application is approved in the first instance, it is an “original BLA” which is assigned a BLA number by the FDA. An approved “original BLA” may be supplemented, or amended, to incorporate changes, such as new indications, which the FDA must also approve. A BLA holder is legally responsible for all regulatory obligations associated with the BLA, including each supplement thereto, and is the only party that is authorized to submit a supplement. The form of BLA, original versus a supplement, is important because payors will generally consider the pricing for all products falling under the same BLA together when calculating reimbursement rates. Existing botulinum toxins, including Botox, are approved under a single BLA for both therapeutic and cosmetic indications. As a result, when payors calculate the average selling price, or ASP, of other botulinum toxins they include the sales prices of both therapeutic and cosmetic sales. The inclusion of a lower cosmetic sales price in the calculation of the ASP can cause physicians to lose money when treating patients with existing botulinum toxins and also creates a deterrent to providing payors and/or providers with rebates or other financial incentives.

Part of our regulatory strategy includes pursuing an original BLA that contemplates exclusively therapeutic uses of ABP-450. We are aware that Evolus has obtained a BLA for cosmetic indications of its Jeuveau product, which is substantially similar to ABP-450. However, given we are a separate legal entity from Evolus, we do not hold a BLA that could be supplemented to add our target indications. As such, we believe the filing of an original BLA for ABP-450 is the appropriate path for approval and, by filing an

original BLA, we can limit it to exclusively therapeutic uses. If we are successful in obtaining an original BLA for therapeutic indications of ABP-450, we believe the ASP for ABP-450 would be calculated using only therapeutic sales, which should facilitate consistent and favorable reimbursement to physicians when they choose to use ABP-450 for therapeutic treatments, as well as our ability to provide payors and/or providers with rebates and other financial incentives. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain such a BLA, and we are aware of other companies that sell botulinum toxins for both therapeutic and aesthetic indications that have experienced regulatory issues and denials by the FDA that led them to abandon the approach of applying for separate original BLAs that would cover the separate markets. We believe these denials occurred, in part, because in those instances the applicant already possessed a BLA for the product in a different indication. In the event we are not able to obtain an original BLA, we may not be able to ensure the consistent pricing that we believe an original BLA would offer, and the anticipated ASP of our products could be adversely affected.

Even if ABP-450 receives regulatory approval for any of our proposed indications, it may fail to achieve the broad degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if ABP-450 receives marketing approval for one or more therapeutic indications, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community for those indications. The commercial success of ABP-450, if approved in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians for approved indications. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

Our efforts to educate physicians, patients, third party payors and others in the medical community on the benefits of our product candidates, if approved, may require significant resources and may never be successful.

If ABP-450 fails to gain market acceptance, this will have a material adverse impact on our ability to generate revenues to provide a satisfactory, or any, return on our investments. Even if some therapeutic indications achieve market acceptance, the market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant revenues.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for ABP-450 in any therapeutic indication, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, limit or delay additional regulatory approvals, limit or prohibit commercial distribution, prevent continued investigation and research and subject us to penalties if we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. Additionally, ABP-450, if approved in any therapeutic indication, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions and market withdrawal and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

If regulatory approval is granted, ABP-450 will be subject to continual regulatory review by the FDA, the EMA and other similar regulatory authorities. Any regulatory approvals that we or our current or future collaborators receive for ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indication may also be subject to limitations on the approved indications for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or such approvals may contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase IV clinical studies, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. In addition, if the applicable regulatory agency approves ABP-450 in any therapeutic indication, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP requirements and GCPs, for any clinical studies that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with ABP-450, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

Additionally, if ABP-450 receives marketing approval for any of our proposed indications, the FDA could require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of the therapy outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a medication guide outlining the risks for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Authorities in other jurisdictions also may take similar actions. Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of ABP-450 in the proposed therapeutic indications and could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow to or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, given the similarity of ABP-450 to Jeuveau, any adverse developments with respect to Jeuveau, including adverse events or changes in regulatory status, may also directly impact the development, commercialization or regulation of ABP-450, if approved.

Even if we receive marketing approval, coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, which could make it difficult for us to sell the product profitably.

Market acceptance and sales of ABP-450, if approved, will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the product and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities, managed care organizations and other private health insurers.

Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to the payor.

Third-party payors decide which therapies they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. While no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States, third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for ABP-450 will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. Therefore, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product or any related treatments. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a therapy does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each payor determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a therapy, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the therapy and on what tier of its formulary it will be placed. The position on a payor’s list of covered drugs and biological products, or formulary, generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the therapy and can strongly influence the adoption of such therapy by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. In addition, because certain of our proposed indications of ABP-450 will require the product to be physician-administered, separate reimbursement for the product itself may or may not be available. Instead, the administering physician may only be reimbursed for providing the treatment or procedure in which our product is used.

There may be significant delays in obtaining such coverage and reimbursement for newly approved products, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the product is approved by the FDA. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a product will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, intellectual property, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost products and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors, by any future laws limiting pharmaceutical prices and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of product from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

Third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product for which we obtain marketing approval. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize ABP-450.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe a continued emphasis on cost containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries could continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

The delivery of health care in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of healthcare and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the health care budgetary constraints in most European Union member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever increasing European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third party payors in the European Union, the United States and other jurisdictions to cap or reduce health care costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

ABP-450, if approved in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, will face significant competition and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration and expansion.

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovation. It also requires, among other things, the ability to effectively discover, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for novel products, as well as the ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products, including communicating the effectiveness, safety and value of products to actual and prospective customers and medical professionals. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of products competitive with those that we are developing.

Our primary competitors for ABP-450 in the injectable botulinum toxin pharmaceutical market for therapeutic use are:

We are also aware of competing botulinum toxins currently being developed or commercialized in the United States, European Union, Asia, South America and other markets. While some of these products may not meet United States regulatory standards, the companies operating in these markets may be able to produce products at a lower cost than United States and European manufacturers. In addition to the injectable botulinum toxin dose forms, we are aware that other companies are developing topical botulinum toxins for therapeutic indications. We will also face competition in our target therapeutic markets from other pharmaceutical products.

For the treatment of cervical dystonia, in addition to other injectable botulinum toxins, we will face competition from orally administered anticholinergic, GABA receptor agonist, benzodiazepine, dopaminergic and anticonvulsant pharmaceuticals. For the treatment of migraine, we will face competition from calcitonin gene-related peptide agonists, or CGRPs, including Aimovig (erenumab) marketed by Amgen Inc., Ajovy (fremenezumab) marketed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and Emgality (galcenezumab) marketed by Eli Lilly and Company, as well as certain orally administered anti-epileptic, beta-blocker and triptan pharmaceuticals. The FDA has also accepted a New Drug Application for vazegepant, marketed by Pfizer Inc., to be used as an intranasal formulation for both the acute treatment and prevention of migraine. For the treatment of gastroparesis, we will face competition from prokinetic agents, including REGLAN (metoclopramide), which is the only medication currently approved by FDA for the treatment of gastroparesis. Many of our competitors have greater financial and other resources than we have. This enables them, among other things, to leverage their financial resources to make greater R&D, marketing and promotion investments than us. Our competitors may also have more experience and expertise in obtaining marketing approvals from the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Our technologies and products may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors. For example, Revance has published data related to the treatment of cervical dystonia that indicates that its botulinum toxin may have a duration of effect of at least 24 weeks, which may compare favorably to the duration of effect of ABP-450. As more companies develop new intellectual property in our markets, the possibility of a competitor acquiring patent or other rights that may limit our products or potential products increases, which could lead to litigation. In addition to product development, testing, approval and promotion, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include industry consolidation, product quality and price, product technology, reputation, customer service and access to technical information.

If approved, ABP-450 may face competition sooner than anticipated.

With the enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, an abbreviated pathway for the approval of biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created. The abbreviated regulatory pathway establishes legal authority for the FDA to review and approve biosimilar biologics. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until twelve years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this twelve-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical studies to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. While it is uncertain when such processes intended to implement the BPCIA may be fully adopted by the FDA, any such processes could have a material adverse effect on the future commercial prospects for our biological products.

We have not determined whether ABP-450 would qualify for the twelve-year period of exclusivity based on submission of an original BLA, a shorter period or any exclusivity at all. Even if we are able to obtain separate twelve-year exclusivity, or a shorter exclusivity period, there is a risk that any exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, that the FDA attempts to adopt an alternate interpretation of law that precludes exclusivity, or that the FDA will not consider ABP-450 to be a reference product for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for competition sooner than anticipated. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar product, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing. If we are unable to obtain an original BLA, and ABP-450 receives a supplemental BLA, we would not qualify for the exclusivity period.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities on our own or through third parties, we will be unable to successfully commercialize ABP-450, if approved in any proposed therapeutic indication, or generate product revenue.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have little experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To successfully commercialize ABP-450, if approved in any proposed therapeutic indication, in the United States, the European Union, Canada and other jurisdictions we may seek to enter, we will need to build out our sales and marketing capabilities, either on our own or with others. The establishment and development of our own commercial team or the establishment of a contract sales force to market ABP-450 will be expensive and time-consuming and may divert significant management focus and resources, potentially delaying any product launch. Moreover, we cannot be certain that we will be able to successfully develop this capability, given that we have no experience as a company in commercializing products. We may seek to enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their established marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into or maintain such agreements on favorable terms or at all. We can provide no assurance that any future collaborators will provide effective sales forces or marketing and distribution capabilities. We compete with many companies that currently have extensive, experienced and well-funded marketing and sales operations to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel, and will have to compete with those companies to recruit, hire, train and retain any of our own marketing and sales personnel. We will likely also face competition if we seek third parties to assist us with the sales and marketing efforts of ABP-450 in our proposed therapeutic indications. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

We will need to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.

As of December 31, 2023, we had ten employees. As the clinical development of ABP-450 progresses, we also expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of research, development, regulatory affairs and, if ABP-450 receives marketing approval for any of our proposed indications, sales, marketing and distribution. In addition, we also expect to hire additional personnel in order to operate as a public company. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. In addition, we must effectively integrate, develop and motivate a growing number of new employees, and maintain the beneficial aspects of our corporate culture. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our development and strategic objectives or disrupt our operations.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on third parties, including independent organizations, advisors and consultants, and CROs to provide certain services to support and perform our operations. There can be no assurance that the services of these third parties will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality, accuracy or quantity of the services provided, in particular the services provided by our CROs, is compromised for any reason, our clinical studies may be delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain, or may be substantially delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval of ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other suitable outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, or at all.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, vendors and other agents may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial collaborators, principal investigators, vendors and other agents may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violates applicable regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to regulatory agencies, manufacturing standards, and federal and state healthcare laws and regulations. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. We could face liability under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and similar state laws. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, referrals, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct by these parties could also involve the improper use of individually

identifiable information, including, without limitation, information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in significant regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Further, should violations include promotion of unapproved (off-label) uses of one or more of our products, we could face significant regulatory sanctions for unlawful promotion, as well as substantial penalties under the federal False Claims Act, or FCA, and similar state laws. Similar concerns could exist in jurisdictions outside of the United States as well. We adopted, in connection with the completion of the Business Combination, a code of conduct applicable to all of our employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. The precautions we take to detect and prevent misconduct may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of noncompliance with these laws, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our proposed international operations will expose us to risks, and failure to manage these risks may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

We expect to have operations both inside and outside the United States if ABP-450 is approved for commercial sale in multiple jurisdictions. International operations are subject to a number of inherent risks, and our future results could be adversely affected by a number of factors if we seek and obtain the necessary approvals, including:

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of ABP-450.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of ABP-450 and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our products. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of ABP-450 in any current or future proposed therapeutic indication. We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical studies. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing ABP-450, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of ABP-450; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms.

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, conduct our clinical studies and commercialize ABP-450.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management. We believe that our future success is highly dependent upon the contributions of our senior management, particularly Marc Forth, our Chief Executive Officer, as well as other members of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical studies or the commercialization of ABP-450 in each of our therapeutic indications or any future products we develop.

In addition, we could experience difficulties attracting and retaining qualified employees in the future. For example, competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceuticals field is intense due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information or that their former employers own their research output.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials, and we and our third-party manufacturer and supplier must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

Our R&D and manufacturing activities in the future may, and Daewoong’s manufacturing and supplying activities presently do, involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including botulinum toxin type-A, a key component of ABP-450, and other hazardous compounds. We and Daewoong are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at Daewoong’s facilities pending their use and disposal. We and Daewoong cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of Daewoong’s manufacturing processes, our commercialization efforts or our business operations and could cause environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by Daewoong for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, this may not eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by one or more 5% shareholders over a rolling three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post- change taxable income or income tax liabilities, as applicable, may be limited. As of December 31, 2023 (Successor) and December 31, 2022 (Predecessor), the Company had $87.3 million and $67.5 million of federal NOLs available to offset our future federal taxable income, if any, and federal research and development tax credit carryforwards of $6.1 million and $3.9 million, respectively. These federal research and development tax credit carryforwards and our federal NOLs expire at various dates in 2039 and 2036, respectively. The Company had $116.2 million and $67.4 million of state NOLs as of December 31, 2023 (Successor) and December 31, 2022 (Predecessor), respectively. We may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs to offset federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.

Changes in tax laws may impact our future financial position and results of operations.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, or interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us, any of which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. We are currently unable to predict whether such changes will occur and, if so, the ultimate impact on our business. To the extent that such changes have a negative impact on us or our suppliers, including as a result of related uncertainty, these changes may materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Prior to the Business Combination, Priveterra identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. In 2024, AEON identified additional material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to fiscal year 2023. One or more of these material weaknesses could adversely affect our ability to report our results of operations and financial condition accurately and in a timely manner, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us and materially and adversely affect our business and operating results.

Prior to consummation of the Business Combination, Priveterra management identified a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting, related to Priveterra’s accounting for complex financial instruments. In 2024, AEON management identified additional material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related to its fiscal year 2023, related to the Business Combination and for the valuation of complex financial instruments. To respond to the material weaknesses, we have devoted and plan to continue to devote, significant effort and resources to the remediation and improvement of our internal control over financial reporting. While we have processes to identify and appropriately apply applicable accounting requirements, we plan to enhance these processes to better evaluate our research and understanding of the nuances of the complex accounting standards that apply to our consolidated financial statements. Our plans at this time include providing enhanced access to accounting literature, research materials and documents, and increased communication among our personnel and third-party professionals with whom we consult regarding complex accounting applications. The elements of our remediation plan can only be accomplished over time, and we can offer no assurance that these initiatives will ultimately have the intended effects.

We may face an excise tax liability as a result of redemptions of Priveterra Class A common stock prior to and in connection with the Business Combination.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides for, among other measures, a new 1% U.S. federal excise tax on certain repurchases (including redemptions) of stock by publicly traded domestic (i.e., U.S.) corporations. Because Priveterra was a Delaware corporation with securities trading on Nasdaq prior to the Business Combination, Priveterra was a “covered corporation” for this purpose. The excise tax is imposed on the repurchasing corporation itself, not its stockholders from whom the shares are repurchased. The amount of the excise tax is generally 1% of the excess of (i) the fair market value of the shares repurchased reduced by (ii) the fair market value of stock issued by the repurchasing corporation in the same year. In addition, certain exceptions apply to the excise tax. The U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) has been given authority to provide regulations and other guidance to carry out, and prevent the abuse or avoidance of, the excise tax.

A total of 27,042,840 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock were redeemed in 2023 in connection with Priveterra’s special meetings held in February 2023 and July 2023, respectively. Whether and to what extent we are ultimately subject to the excise tax in connection with these redemptions will depend on a number of factors, including (i) the fair market value of such redemptions, together with any other redemptions or repurchases consummated by us in 2023, (ii) the nature and amount of any equity issuances made by us and Priveterra in 2023 (including the shares of Priveterra Class A common stock issued in the Business Combination and any subsequent issuances we may make in 2023), and (iii) legal uncertainties regarding how the excise tax applies to transactions like the Business Combination and the content of final and proposed regulations and further guidance from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Any excise tax would be payable by us, and the mechanics of any required payment of the excise tax are not clear.

Risks Related to our Reliance on Third Parties

We rely on the Daewoong Agreement to provide us exclusive rights to commercialize and distribute ABP-450 in certain territories. Any termination or loss of significant rights, including exclusivity, under the Daewoong Agreement would materially and adversely affect our development or commercialization of ABP-450.

Pursuant to the Daewoong Agreement, we have secured an exclusive license from Daewoong, a South Korean pharmaceutical manufacturer, to import, distribute, promote, market, develop, offer for sale and otherwise commercialize and exploit ABP-450 for therapeutic indications in certain territories including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, Commonwealth of Independent States and South Africa. The Daewoong Agreement imposes on us obligations relating to exclusivity, territorial rights, development, regulatory approval, commercialization, payment, diligence, sublicensing, intellectual property protection and other matters. For example, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval of ABP-450 and obtain from Daewoong all of our product supply requirements for ABP-450. In addition, under the Daewoong Agreement, we are required to submit our commercialization plan to a Joint Steering Committee, or JSC, comprised of an equal number of development and commercial representatives from Daewoong and us, for review and input.

Although the Daewoong Agreement provides us with final decision-making power regarding the marketing, promotion, sale and/or distribution of ABP-450, any disagreement among the JSC would be referred to Daewoong’s and our respective senior management for resolution if the JSC is unable to reach a decision within thirty days, which may result in a delay in our ability to implement our commercialization plan or harm our working relationship with Daewoong. Further, under the Daewoong Agreement, we may not purchase, sell or distribute any injectable botulinum toxin that is launched in the covered territories after the effective date of the Daewoong Agreement other than ABP-450 in a covered territory or sell ABP-450 outside a covered territory.

The initial term of the Daewoong Agreement will expire on the later of December 20, 2029 or the fifth anniversary of our receipt of approval from the relevant governmental authority necessary to market and sell ABP-450 in any of the aforementioned territories. The Daewoong Agreement will renew for unlimited additional three-year terms after the expiration of the initial term. We or Daewoong may terminate the Daewoong Agreement if the other party breaches any of its duties or obligations and such breach continues without cure for ninety days, or thirty days in the case of a payment default, or, if such breach is not capable of being cured, immediately by delivery of written notice. The Daewoong Agreement will terminate without notice upon our bankruptcy or insolvency or if we assign our business or the Daewoong Agreement in whole or in part for the benefit of creditors. On March 19, 2024, we entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Daewoong Agreement (the “Daewoong Agreement Amendment”) with Daewoong, which amends the Daewoong Agreement to provide that Daewoong may terminate the Daewoong Agreement if, over any six month period, (a) we cease to commercialize ABP-450 in each of the territories specified in the License Agreement and (b) we cease to advance any clinical studies of ABP-450 any such territories. The Daewoong Agreement Amendment also provides that, in the event that the License Agreement is terminated for the foregoing reasons or due to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, Daewoong will have the right to purchase all Know-How (as defined in the License Agreement) related to ABP-450 for a price of $1.00 (the “Termination Purchase Right”). The Termination Purchase Right will terminate and expire upon Daewoong’s sale of 50% of its common stock, including common stock held by its affiliates and common stock that would be issued upon an Automatic Conversion or Optional Conversion of the Convertible Notes (as defined in the Convertible Notes).

We will be the sole owner of any marketing authorization we pursue related to therapeutic indications of ABP-450 in a covered territory. This will include ownership of any BLA that we may submit to the FDA, MAA that we may submit to the EMA, NDS that we may submit to Health Canada, and any other approvals that we may receive in a covered territory. However, if we do not renew the Daewoong Agreement following any initial or renewal term, or if Daewoong terminates the Daewoong Agreement due to a breach by us, we are obligated to transfer our rights in such marketing authorizations to Daewoong.

If we breach any material obligations, or use the intellectual property licensed to us in an unauthorized manner, we may be required to pay damages to Daewoong and Daewoong may have the right to terminate our license. Any termination or loss of rights under the Daewoong Agreement would materially and adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize ABP-450, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. If we were to lose our rights under the Daewoong Agreement, we believe it would be difficult or impossible for us to find an alternative supplier of a botulinum toxin type-A complex. In addition, to the extent the alternative supplier has not secured regulatory approvals in a jurisdiction, we would have to expend significant resources, including performing additional clinical studies, to obtain regulatory approvals that may never be obtained or require several years to obtain, which could significantly delay commercialization. We may be unable to raise additional capital to fund our operations during this extended time on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we were to commercialize ABP-450 and later experience delays as a result of a dispute with Daewoong, the demand for ABP-450 could be materially and adversely affected. For more information on the Daewoong Agreement, including a further explanation of our obligations, please see “Business — Daewoong License and Supply Agreement.”

We currently rely solely on Daewoong to manufacture ABP-450, and as such, any production or other problems with Daewoong could adversely affect us. The manufacture of biologics is complex and Daewoong may encounter difficulties in production that may impact our ability to provide supply of ABP-450 for clinical studies, our ability to obtain marketing approval, or our ability to obtain commercial supply of our products, which, if approved, could be delayed or stopped.

We have no experience in biologic manufacturing and do not own or operate, and we do not expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage and distribution, or testing. We depend solely upon Daewoong to manufacture ABP-450. Any failure or refusal by Daewoong to supply ABP-450 could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts. The Daewoong Agreement also provides for a fixed price related to the supply of ABP-450 for ten years or for five years after the receipt of regulatory approvals, and if a change in price were to occur, it could impair our ability to obtain necessary quantities of ABP-450. Although alternative sources of supply may exist, the number of third-party suppliers with the necessary manufacturing and regulatory expertise and facilities is limited, and it could be expensive and take a significant amount of time to arrange for alternative

suppliers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. New suppliers of any product candidate would be required to qualify under applicable regulatory requirements and would need to have sufficient rights under applicable intellectual property laws to the method of manufacturing the product candidate. Obtaining the necessary FDA approvals or other qualifications under applicable regulatory requirements and ensuring non- infringement of third-party intellectual property rights could result in a significant interruption of supply and could require the new manufacturer to bear significant additional costs which may be passed on to us. We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new contract manufacturing organization or manufacturing process will produce our product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical suppliers which could require conducting additional clinical studies.

In addition, there are risks associated with large scale manufacturing for clinical studies or commercial scale including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale-up, process reproducibility, stability issues, compliance with good manufacturing practices, lot consistency and timely availability of raw materials. Even if we obtain marketing approval for ABP-450, there is no assurance that Daewoong will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential commercial launch of the product or to meet potential future demand. If Daewoong is unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical studies, including preclinical studies, or for commercialization, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our reliance on Daewoong entails additional risks, including reliance on Daewoong for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the Daewoong Agreement by Daewoong, and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the Daewoong Agreement at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. Our failure, or the failure of Daewoong, to comply with applicable regulations, such as cGMP, which includes, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation, could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of the product candidate or drugs, import alerts or detentions preventing import of product into the United States or other territories, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of ABP-450. Our dependence on Daewoong also subjects us to all of the risks related to Daewoong’s business, which are all generally beyond our control. Daewoong’s ability to perform its obligations under the Daewoong Agreement is dependent on its operational and financial health, which could be negatively impacted by several factors, including changes in the economic, political and legislative conditions in South Korea and the broader region in general and the ability of Daewoong to continue to successfully attract customers and compete in its market. Daewoong’s lack of familiarity with, or inability to effectively operate, the facility and produce products of consistent quality, may harm our ability to compete in our market.

In addition, we are ultimately responsible for distribution of products under any authorization or approval we hold to investigate or market ABP-450. We do not own a manufacturing facility and we have never supervised manufacturing operations, but we have regulatory obligations to review batch records and release of the investigational product for our clinical studies. Further, we will have similar regulatory obligations if the product is marketed and could be held responsible for any distribution of adulterated or misbranded ABP-450, even if caused by Daewoong’s noncompliance.

The FDA conducted a cGMP and pre-approval inspection of Daewoong’s manufacturing facility in South Korea related to Evolus’ BLA for Jeuveau from November 8, 2017 to November 17, 2017. At the end of the inspection, the FDA issued an FDA Form 483 with ten inspectional observations of regulatory noncompliance to Daewoong. The Form 483 included observations relating to the need for adherence to improved procedures, processes and documentation relating to investigations of and corrective actions for non-compliance with specifications for batches and components, environmental monitoring, drug substance testing, computer system access, material handling and staff training. Daewoong timely responded to the FDA with a plan for implementing corrective actions related to these observations. Daewoong provided complete responses to the Form 483; however, the time to correct the observations, submit the complete response and FDA review and acceptance of the responses delayed approval of Evolus’ BLA. None of the FDA, Health Canada or the EMA have conducted a repeat inspection of Daewoong manufacturing facility per usual FDA Quality Review Practices to confirm continued compliance with cGMP regulations. A separate pre-licensure inspection may be required for any BLA we submit for any of our product candidates. Should the repeat inspection find serious deviation from cGMP manufacturing regulations, or repeated observations, Daewoong may be required to expend significant time and resources to correct any observations, which could cause delays and adversely affect availability of drug product to support our R&D operations. For example, the FDA is permitted to deny entry of any imported product that “appears” to be adulterated or misbranded, meaning it does not actually need to be violative to be prohibited from entry, just that the FDA believes it might be violative. FDA-483 observations, particularly if

eventually escalated into an FDA untitled or warning letter, could result in an import alert, which bans entry of a product into the United States until issues are resolved to the FDA’s satisfaction, and until the FDA has reinspected the facility to confirm all corrections have been implemented, which could potentially take a considerable amount of time. In addition, failure to have an observation-free inspection during a pre-approval inspection can result in delay or denial or FDA approval. Similar issues could occur in other jurisdictions as well.

Additionally, if Daewoong’s facility were to be damaged, destroyed or otherwise unable to operate or comply with regulatory requirements, whether due to earthquakes, fire, floods, hurricanes, storms, tornadoes, other natural disasters, employee malfeasance, terrorist acts, political unrest, power outages or otherwise, or if operations at the facility were disrupted for any other reason, such an event could negatively affect our ongoing preclinical studies and clinical studies and, if ABP-450 is approved, jeopardize Daewoong’s ability to manufacture ABP-450 as promptly as we or our customers expect or possibly at all. If an event occurred that prevented Daewoong from using all or a significant portion of its manufacturing facility due to damaged critical infrastructure, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for Daewoong to supply enough ABP-450 to continue our business for a substantial period of time.

A material breach by us of the terms of our license and settlement agreement with Medytox, Inc. could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In May 2021, Medytox, Inc., or Medytox, brought a case against Old AEON in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, or the Medytox Litigation, alleging, among other things, that Daewoong stole Medytox’s botulinum toxin bacterial strain, or the BTX strain, and misappropriated certain trade secrets of Medytox, including the process used to manufacture ABP-450 using the BTX strain, and that our and Daewoong’s activities conducted in the United States gave rise to liability for misappropriation of trade secrets. Medytox sought, among other things, (i) actual, consequential and punitive damages, (ii) a reasonable royalty, as appropriate, (iii) disgorgement of any proceeds or profits, (iv) injunctive relief prohibiting us from using Medytox’s trade secrets to manufacture, offer to sell, or sell therapeutic BTX products, including ABP-450, and (v) attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Medytox Litigation was another step in an ongoing dispute involving Medytox and Allergan, on the one side, and Evolus, Daewoong and us on the other side. In June 2017, Medytox brought a civil lawsuit of a similar nature against Evolus, Daewoong and us in the Superior Court of the State of California, which we refer to as the Superior Court Litigation, and a separate lawsuit in October 2017 against Daewoong in South Korea, which we refer to as the Korea Litigation. The lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California alleged claims substantially similar to the Medytox Litigation and was subsequently stayed on grounds of forum non conveniens, because the underlying facts that gave rise to the complaint occurred in South Korea, among other reasons. We are not a party to the Korea Litigation. In April 2018, the Superior Court of the State of California dismissed Medytox’s suit against Daewoong without prejudice on the basis that Medytox had brought a substantially similar proceeding against Daewoong in South Korea, and continued a stay of the case as to us and Evolus. In February 2021, the Superior Court of the State of California dismissed Medytox’s suit against us without prejudice, following Medytox’s filing of a notice of settlement of the case based on a settlement it entered with Evolus.

Additionally, in January 2019, Allergan and Medytox filed a complaint against Daewoong and Evolus with the United States International Trade Commission, or the United States ITC, alleging that the BTX strain used in Evolus’ Jeuveau product is manufactured based on misappropriated trade secrets of Medytox and therefore its importation is an unfair act. The Administrative Law Judge issued a final determination in December 2020. The final determination concluded that a violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 had occurred, and the United States ITC issued a limited exclusion order forbidding entry of Jeuveau into the United States for 21 months and a cease and desist order prohibiting Daewoong and Evolus from engaging in the importations, sale for importation, marketing, distribution, offering for sale, the sale after the importation of, or other transfers of Jeuveau within the United States for 21 months. The 21-month ban was stayed as a result of a settlement agreement between Evolus and Medytox in February 2021.

Effective June 21, 2021, we entered into a settlement and license agreement with Medytox, or the Medytox Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, Medytox agreed (a) to dismiss all claims against us in the Medytox Litigation, (b) to pursue dismissal of the appeals related to the December 2020 final determination of the United States ITC and agreed that as a result of such dismissal the final determination would be vacated, (c) to file appropriate documents in the Korea Litigation and related actions in support of the terms of the settlement, and (d) not to revive or otherwise pursue the Superior Court Litigation with respect to us. In addition, Medytox granted us a non-exclusive, royalty bearing license to Medytox’s botulinum toxin strain and specific trade

secrets alleged to have been misappropriated in the litigation to commercialize and manufacture specific botulinum neurotoxin products including ABP-450 worldwide, with the exception of South Korea. In exchange for the license, we issued Medytox 26,680,511 shares of Old AEON common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, and agreed to pay Medytox single-digit royalties on the net sales of licensed products for 15 years following our first $1.0 million in commercial sales of neurotoxin products.

Medytox can terminate the Medytox Settlement Agreement if we materially breach any material provision of the agreement, either immediately upon written notice if the breach is incurable or after 60 days if capable of remedy. Additionally, Medytox may terminate the Medytox Settlement Agreement with 15 days of written notice if we or our affiliates or sublicensees challenge the validity, enforceability, scope, or protected status of Medytox’s botulinum strain and specific trade secrets alleged to have been misappropriated in the litigation. If the Medytox Settlement Agreement were terminated, Medytox would be able to revive the Medytox Litigation and other claims against us, and may seek an injunction or other ruling against us in the Korea Litigation, any one of which could result in us losing access to ABP-450 and the manufacturing process and require us to negotiate a new license with Medytox for continued access to ABP-450. We may not be able to successfully negotiate such license on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we are unable to license ABP-450, we may not be able to find a replacement product candidate on a timeline favorable to us, if at all, without expending significant resources and being required to seek additional regulatory approvals, which would be uncertain, time consuming and costly.

We rely, and will continue to rely, on third parties and consultants to conduct all of our preclinical studies and clinical studies. If these third parties or consultants do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for ABP-450.

We do not currently have the ability to independently conduct any preclinical studies or clinical studies. We rely, and will continue to rely, on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories, collaborative partners and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct preclinical studies and clinical studies on ABP-450. The third parties with whom we currently or may in the future contract for execution of any of our preclinical studies and clinical studies play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. However, these third parties are not our employees, and except for contractual duties and obligations, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to any of our current or future programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical studies, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our preclinical studies and clinical studies is conducted in accordance with the investigational plan and protocol. Moreover, the FDA and other similar regulatory authorities require us to observe both good laboratory practices, or GLP, and animal welfare requirements for preclinical studies, and to comply with GCPs for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical studies to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the study subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical studies. We also rely, and will continue to rely, on consultants to assist in the execution, including data collection and analysis, of any of our future clinical studies.

In addition, the execution of preclinical studies and clinical studies, and the subsequent compilation and analysis of the data produced, requires coordination among various parties. In order for these functions to be carried out effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that these parties communicate and coordinate with one another. Moreover, these third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, some of which may compete with us. If the third parties or consultants conducting our clinical studies do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to GLPs, or our clinical study protocols or GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to conduct additional clinical studies or enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties, which could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies and clinical studies may be extended, delayed or terminated or may need to be repeated. Further, any noncompliance that results in data integrity issues could put any regulatory approval we receive at risk of withdrawal, and could subject us to regulatory sanctions due to failure to adequately oversee the third parties we rely upon. If any of the foregoing were to occur, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, regulatory approval for and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications.

Public health outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) may materially and adversely affect our business and operations.

The COVID-19 pandemic previously adversely affected, and the COVID-19 pandemic or other actual or threatened public health outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics may in the future adversely affect, among other things, our research and development efforts,

clinical trial operations, manufacturing and supply chain operations, administrative personnel, third-party service providers, and business partners.

While the COVID-19 pandemic did not materially adversely affect our business operations during the twelve months ended December 31, 2023, economic and health conditions in the United States and across most of the globe continue to change rapidly and may materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, a continuing widespread pandemic could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 or a future public health outbreak could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar public health outbreak is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may use third-party collaborators to help us develop, validate or commercialize any new products, and our ability to commercialize such products could be impaired or delayed if these collaborations are unsuccessful.

We may license or selectively pursue strategic collaborations for the development, validation and commercialization of ABP-450 in any current or future proposed therapeutic indications. In any third-party collaboration, we would be dependent upon the success of the collaborators in performing their responsibilities and their continued cooperation, and we would have limited control over the amount and timing of resources and effort that our collaborators would dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our collaborators may not cooperate with us or perform their obligations under our agreements with them at all or as expected. Our collaborators may choose to pursue alternative technologies in preference to those being developed in collaboration with us. The development, validation and commercialization of our current and future product candidates may be delayed if collaborators fail to conduct their responsibilities in a timely manner or in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements or if they breach or terminate their collaboration agreements with us. Our collaborators could also independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates, fail to properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, exposing us to litigation. Disputes with our collaborators could also impair our reputation or result in development and commercialization delays, decreased revenues and could cause litigation expenses.

In addition, we may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical studies, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for ABP-450 or our future product candidates in our proposed therapeutic indications, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering ABP-450 or our future product candidates to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document.

We may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of ABP-450 or our future product candidates in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, reduce or delay development programs, delay potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop and commercialize ABP-450 or our future product candidates in any of our proposed therapeutic indications or bring them to market and generate revenue.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we or any of our current or future licensors, including Daewoong, are unable to maintain, obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to ABP-450 and any future product candidates we may develop, or if the scope of any protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to seek, obtain and maintain intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our technologies. We and Daewoong currently rely upon a combination of trademarks, trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements and proprietary know-how. Additionally, Daewoong has obtained a United States patent related to its proprietary botulinum toxin manufacturing process. We also intend to protect our proprietary technology and methods by, among other things, filing for and obtaining United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions, methods of use, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. However, due to existing patent eligibility laws, we do not expect to obtain patent protection for the composition of matter for botulinum toxin, as it is produced by Clostridium botulinum, a gram-positive, rod-shaped, anaerobic, spore-forming, motile bacterium with the ability to produce the botulinum toxin. Although we only own one issued patent covering our migraine injection paradigm (U.S. Patent No. 11,826,405), we do not own any other issued patents, but we have filed certain provisional and non-provisional patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, related to other novel and proprietary methods of utilizing ABP-450 for therapeutic purposes. These patent applications may fail to result in any issued patents with claims that cover ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, in the United States or in other foreign countries, and the patents, if issued, may be declared invalid or unenforceable.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent applications and patents due to the subject matter claimed in such patent applications and patents being in disclosures in the public domain. In addition, it is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our R&D output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our R&D output, such as our employees and third-party consultants, any of these parties may breach these agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent any third party from using any of our technology that is in the public domain to compete with ABP-450 and any future product candidates.

Other parties have developed technologies that may be related to or competitive to our own technologies and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have obtained or may obtain patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our patent applications or any future issued patents. We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to ABP-450 and any future product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and in other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or, in some cases, not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether the inventors of our pending patent applications were the first to make the inventions claimed in those patent applications, or that they were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. If a third party can establish that we were not the first to make or the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, our patent applications may not issue and any patents, if issued, may be challenged and invalidated or rendered unenforceable.

Even in the event our non-provisional patent applications are granted, or if we in-license issued patent rights from third parties, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and any such patents may be challenged in courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad and later declared invalid or unenforceable. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO challenging the validity of one or more claims of any such patents. A third party may also claim that any such patents are invalid or unenforceable in a litigation. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. An adverse result in any legal proceeding could put any such patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could allow third parties to commercialize our products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, we may become involved in derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings and other similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings) challenging the validity, priority or other features of patentability of any such patent rights. Challenges to our patent rights may result in loss of patent rights, exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the scope and duration of the patent protection of

ABP-450 or future product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Furthermore, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of botulinum toxins, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after they are commercialized. As a result, our patent applications, even if issued, may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to ABP-450 or future product candidates, including biosimilar versions of such products.

Even if they are unchallenged, our pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. If the patent protection provided by our patent applications, if issued, is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, our ability to successfully commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates could be negatively affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Under the Daewoong Agreement, we license the trademark for Nabota associated with ABP-450 from Daewoong; however, we may ultimately pursue alternative trademarks and branding for ABP-450. Our or Daewoong’s trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information and those of our future licensors could be disclosed or competitors could otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we or any of our current or future licensors may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our or their intellectual property both in the United States and internationally. If we or any of our current or future licensors are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to ABP-450 to third parties, we may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could adversely affect our business.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, trademarks, confidentiality agreements and proprietary know-how, we may in the future rely upon in-licensed or acquired patents or proprietary technology for the development of ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications. We may not be able to in-license third party patents necessary to commercialize ABP-450 on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could materially harm our business. Even if we are able to in-license any such necessary intellectual property, it could be on nonexclusive terms, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have licensed, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign ABP-450 or future product candidates, or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis, and we may have to abandon development of ABP-450 or future product candidates which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, the strength of any patents that issue from our non-provisional patent applications or that we may in-license from third parties in the technology and healthcare fields involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of any patent rights in such fields can be uncertain. Our pending patent applications and any patent applications that we may in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover ABP-450 in any currently proposed or future therapeutic indications, in the United States or in other foreign countries, and the issued patents that we may in-license may be declared invalid or unenforceable.

We are reliant on the ability of Daewoong, as the licensor of our only product candidate, to maintain its intellectual property and protect its intellectual property against misappropriation, infringement or other violation. We may not have primary control over Daewoong’s or our future licensors’ patent prosecution activities. Furthermore, we may not be allowed to comment on prosecution

strategies, and patent applications currently being prosecuted may be abandoned by the patent owner without our knowledge or consent.

With respect to patents that are issued to our licensors, or patents that may issue on patent applications, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. As a licensee, we are reliant on Daewoong and our future licensors to defend any third-party claims. Our licensors may not defend or prosecute such actions as vigorously or in the manner that we would have if entitled to do so, and we may be impacted by any judgment or settlement resulting from such actions. Also, a third party may challenge the validity of our in-licensing transactions. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, any of our future in-licensed patents and patent applications may not adequately protect the licensors or our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around their or our claims.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or violation, or challenges related to the invalidity or unenforceability of any issued patents we may obtain or in-license may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations.

Our commercial success depends in part on our and any of our future collaborators avoiding infringement, misappropriation or other violation of the intellectual property and related proprietary rights of third parties. Competitors and other entities that possess intellectual property rights related to the use of botulinum toxins in the fields of neurology and gastroenterology have developed large portfolios of patents and patent applications in fields relating to our business. In particular, there are patents held by third parties that relate to the treatment with botulinum toxin-based products. There may also be patent applications that have been filed but not published that, when issued as patents, could be asserted against us. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the technology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the USPTO. Numerous United States and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we plan to develop ABP-450. As the technology, medical device and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidate may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties, regardless of their merit.

There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of ABP-450. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing and can be revised before issuance, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents that ABP-450 or any future product candidates may infringe. It is difficult for industry participants, including us, to identify all third-party patent rights that may be relevant to ABP-450 and future product candidates because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. We may fail to identify relevant patents or patent applications or may identify pending patent applications of potential interest but incorrectly predict the likelihood that such patent applications may issue with claims of relevance to our technology or incorrectly conclude their invalidity or unenforceability. In addition, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover ABP-450 or future product candidates and third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Even if we believe claims brought against us are without merit, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that these third-party patents are valid, enforceable and infringed. In order to successfully challenge the validity of any such United States patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such United States patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such United States patent or find that ABP-450 or future product candidates did not infringe any such claims. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of ABP-450, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize ABP-450 in any proposed therapeutic indication unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our methods of use, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize ABP-450 unless we obtain a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

In addition to claims of patent infringement, third parties may bring claims against us asserting misappropriation or other violations of proprietary technology or other information in the development, manufacture and commercialization of ABP-450. Defense of such a claim would require dedicated time and resources, which time and resources could otherwise be used by us toward the maintenance of our own intellectual property and the development and commercialization of ABP-450 in any current or future

proposed therapeutic indication or for operational upkeep and manufacturing of our product. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. We have been, and may in the future become, party to, or be threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation where our competitors or other third parties may assert claims against us, alleging that our therapeutics, manufacturing methods, formulations, administration methods or delivery devices infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property rights, including patents and trade secrets. For example, in the past, Medytox asserted that we and Daewoong were employing their proprietary technology without authorization, and other third parties may make similar assertions about us or any of our current or future licensors, including Daewoong, in the future. For more information regarding our litigation with Medytox, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties — A material breach by us of the terms of our license and settlement agreement with Medytox, Inc. could have a material adverse effect on our business.”

Likewise, any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications or any future in-licensed patents and pending patent applications may also be subject to priority, validity, inventorship and enforceability disputes in court or before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad. If we or any of our licensors are unsuccessful in any of these proceedings, such patents and patent applications may be narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, we may be required to obtain licenses from third parties, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or we may be required to cease the development, manufacture and commercialization of ABP-450 or future product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Parties making claims against us or any of our current or future licensors may request and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize ABP-450. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business which time and resources could otherwise be used by us toward the maintenance of our own intellectual property and the development and commercialization of ABP-450 in any current or future proposed therapeutic indication or for operational upkeep and manufacturing of our product. In the event of a successful claim of infringement, misappropriation or other violation of a third party’s intellectual property, we or any of our current or future licensors may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties which may not be commercially available, or pay royalties or redesign our infringing products or manufacturing processes, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research, manufacture clinical study supplies or allow commercialization of ABP-450 in any current or future proposed therapeutic indication. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize ABP-450 in one or more of our proposed therapeutic indications, which could harm our business significantly. Similarly, third-party patents could exist that might be enforced against our products, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our intellectual property or the patents and other intellectual property of our licensors, which could be expensive and time-consuming.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including any future patents we may acquire, or any future patents or other intellectual property licensed to us by our licensors, including Daewoong. As a result, we or any of our current or future licensors may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Even if resolved in our favor, this can be unpredictable, expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming and may cause us to incur significant expenses and distract our scientific and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or any of our current or future licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover its technology or that the factors necessary to grant an injunction against an infringer are not satisfied.

An adverse determination of any litigation or other proceedings could put one or more of such patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Interference, derivation or other proceedings brought at the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority or patentability of inventions with respect to any of our future patent applications or those of our licensors or collaborators. Litigation or USPTO proceedings brought by us or any of our current or future licensors may fail or may be invoked against us or our licensors by third parties. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management or the management of any of our current or future licensors, including

Daewoong. We may not be able, alone or with any of our current or future licensors or collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

Most of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation or other intellectual property proceedings longer than we could. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. In addition, the uncertainties associated with the initiation and continuation of litigation or other intellectual property proceedings could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical studies, continue our internal research programs, or in-license needed technology, or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates are subject, in part, to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others, including Daewoong. If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are heavily reliant upon our license from Daewoong to certain proprietary technology that is important or necessary to the development of ABP-450 and future product candidates. Additionally, further development and commercialization of ABP-450 and future product candidates may require us to enter into additional license or collaboration agreements. For more information regarding our reliance on Daewoong and future collaboration agreements, please see “Risk Factors — Reliance on Third Parties.”

Our current and any future licenses may not provide us with exclusive rights to use the licensed intellectual property and technology or may not provide us with exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors or other third parties from developing and commercializing competitive products, including in territories covered by our licenses.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the maintenance, prosecution, preparation, filing, enforcement, defense or litigation of patents and patent applications that we license from or license to third parties and are reliant on our licensors or licensees to do so. We thus cannot be certain that activities such as patent maintenance and prosecution by our licensors have been or will be conducted consistent with our best interests or in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. It is possible that our licensors’ infringement proceedings or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves or may not be conducted in accordance with our best interests. If our licensors fail to maintain such patents or patent applications, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated, and our right to develop and commercialize future product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights and our right to exclude third parties from commercializing competing products could be adversely affected. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In spite of our efforts, our current and future licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under our license agreements and might therefore terminate such license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. Disputes may arise with respect to our current or future licensing agreements, including disputes relating to:

For example, the Daewoong Agreement does not contain provisions regarding the ownership of any intellectual property that results from inventions or improvements related to ABP-450. There could be disputes in the future related to the inventorship or ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from our improvements to ABP-450 and future related product candidates, although we believe we are the sole owner of our intellectual property and have developed it independently of Daewoong.

If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates. If our licenses are terminated, we may lose our rights to develop and market ABP-450 and future product candidates, lose patent protection for ABP-450 and future product candidates, experience significant delays in the development and commercialization of ABP-450 and future product candidates, or incur liability for damages. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties, including our competitors, to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses and to compete with ABP-450 and future product candidates.

Furthermore, if the Daewoong Agreement or any future licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents or other intellectual property rights fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of ABP-450 and future product candidates. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we license prevent or impair our ability to maintain other licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize ABP-450 and future product candidates. In addition, certain of these license agreements may not be assignable by us without the consent of the respective licensor, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to engage in certain transactions. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our license agreements are, and future license agreements are likely to be, complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents relating to ABP-450 and any future product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States; a patent owner may have limited remedies, and in some cases foreign authorities may even force us to grant a compulsory license to competitors or other third parties. As such, we or our licensors may not be able to obtain patent protection for ABP-450 and future product candidates outside the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from using our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement any of our patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, or the marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We or our licensors may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensors initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

In addition, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in domestic and foreign intellectual property laws.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patent protection for our product candidates, including ABP-450, we and our licensors also rely on trade secrets protection to protect our and their unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, in order to maintain our and their competitive positions.

We and our licensors seek to protect our trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, collaborators, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We have entered into invention assignment agreements with our current employees. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we or our licensors have taken to protect our respective proprietary technologies will be effective.

Additionally, we cannot guarantee that we or our licensors have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our respective trade secrets. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by taking security measures with respect to our information technology systems; however, our or our licensors’ systems and security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. As a result, we or our licensors could lose our trade secrets and third parties could use our or our licensors’ trade secrets to compete with ABP-450 or future product candidates.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Competitors or third parties could purchase ABP-450 and future product candidates and attempt to replicate or reverse engineer some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside the scope of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

We employ individuals who were previously employed at other pharmaceutical companies including certain of our anticipated competitors. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information, including intellectual property and other proprietary information, of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. We may not be successful in defending these claims, and even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire or retain employees. A loss of key personnel or their work product could diminish or prevent our ability to commercialize ABP-450, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. Moreover, even when we obtain agreements assigning intellectual property to us, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Furthermore, individuals executing agreements with us may have preexisting or competing obligations to a third party, such as an academic institution, and thus an agreement with us may be ineffective in perfecting ownership of inventions developed by that individual. We or our licensors may in the future be subject to claims by former employees, consultants or other third parties asserting an ownership right in our owned or licensed patents or patent applications. An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar technology and therapeutics, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of any patent protection covering ABP-450 and future product candidates. Disputes about the ownership of intellectual property may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Although we have filed applications to register trademarks in the United States and other jurisdictions, we currently do not own any registered trademarks and our current and future trademark applications in the United States and in foreign jurisdictions may not be allowed or may subsequently be opposed, as has been done in the United States with the Company’s trademark applications for AEON and related marks. Further, our unregistered or future registered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Third parties may assert that we are using trademarks or trade names that are confusingly similar to their marks. If any third-party were able to establish that our trademarks or trade names were infringing their marks, that third-party may be able to block our ability to use the infringing trademark or trade name. In addition, if a third-party were to bring such a claim, we would be required to dedicate time and resources to fight the claim, which time and resources could otherwise be used toward the maintenance of our own intellectual property.

Parties making claims against us may request and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could prevent our ability to use the subject trademarks or trade names. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee and management resources from our business, and their time and resources could otherwise be used toward the maintenance of our own intellectual property and may otherwise be expensive and time- consuming, particularly for a company of our size. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement. We may be required to re-brand one or more of our products or services offered under the infringing trademark or trade name, which may require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Third parties could claim senior rights in marks which might be enforced against our use of trademarks or trade names, resulting in an injunction prohibiting our sales under those trademarks or trade names.

Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Government Regulation

Our business and products are subject to extensive government regulation.

We are subject to extensive, complex, costly and evolving regulation by federal and state governmental authorities in the United States, the European Union, Canada and other countries, principally by the FDA, the EMA, Health Canada and other similar regulatory authorities. Daewoong is also subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and the South Korean regulatory authorities as well as other regulatory authorities. Our failure to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, or Daewoong’s or any future collaborator’s failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, including those promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and other laws may subject us to operating restrictions and criminal prosecution, monetary penalties and other enforcement or administrative actions, including sanctions, warning letters, import alerts, product seizures, recalls, fines, injunctions, suspension, revocation of approvals, or exclusion from future participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

In the event our products receive regulatory approval, we and our direct and indirect suppliers, including Daewoong, will remain subject to the periodic inspection of our plants and facilities, review of production processes, and testing of our products to confirm that we are in compliance with all applicable regulations. Adverse findings during regulatory inspections may result in requirements that we implement REMS programs, requirements that we complete government mandated clinical studies, and government enforcement actions, including those relating to labeling, advertising, marketing and promotion, as well as regulations governing manufacturing controls.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of ABP-450 in any of our proposed therapeutic indications, the commercial prospects for ABP-450 may be harmed and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

In addition, in the course of our activities we may collect information from clinical study subjects or other individuals that subjects us to a variety of rapidly evolving laws regarding privacy, data protection and data security, including those related to the collection, storage, handling, use, disclosure, transfer and security of personal data. Data breaches or other violations of these laws could subject our business to significant penalties and reputational harm. For more information on data security and privacy, see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Government Regulation — We are subject to stringent and often unsettled privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations could adversely affect our business.”

If we fail to obtain regulatory approvals in foreign jurisdictions for ABP-450, we will be unable to market our products outside of the United States.

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are and will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing manufacturing, clinical studies, commercial sales and distribution of our future products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain approval of the product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before commencing clinical studies or marketing in those countries. The approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional clinical testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Clinical studies conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one or more foreign regulatory authorities does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals or to do so on a timely basis, and even if we do file, we may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in markets outside of the United States.

The misuse or off-label use of our approved products, if any, may harm our reputation in the marketplace, result in injuries that lead to product liability suits or result in costly investigations, fines or sanctions by regulatory bodies if we are deemed to have engaged in the promotion of these uses, any of which could be costly to our business.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the marketing and promotional claims that are made about pharmaceutical products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses or indications that are not specifically approved by the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. For example, if we receive marketing approval for ABP-450 in any therapeutic indication, physicians could use ABP-450 on their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label, such as for the treatment of other aesthetic or therapeutic indications for which other similar botulinum toxins are approved. Although ABP-450, if approved, will be similar to Jeuveau, we will not be able to market ABP-450 as being interchangeable with Jeuveau. If we are found to have promoted uses that are not part of ABP-450’s approved labeling, we may be subject to enforcement action from the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory agencies, as applicable, and become subject to significant liability, which would materially harm our business. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would materially harm our business. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted from our business operations, significant legal expenses could be incurred, and our reputation could be damaged. The FDA has also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed in order to resolve FDA enforcement actions. If we are deemed by the FDA to have engaged in the promotion of our products for off-label use, we could be subject to FDA prohibitions or other restrictions on the sale or marketing of our products and other operations or significant fines and penalties, and the imposition of these sanctions could also affect our reputation and position within the industry. In addition, off-label promotion could expose us to liability under the FCA, as well as similar state laws.

Physicians may also misuse ABP-450, if approved, or use improper techniques, potentially leading to adverse results, side effects or injury, which may lead to product liability claims. If ABP-450 is misused or used with improper techniques or is determined to cause or contribute to patient harm, we may become subject to costly litigation by our customers or their patients. Product liability claims could divert management’s attention from our core business, be expensive to defend, result in sizable damage awards against us that may not be covered by insurance and subject us to negative publicity resulting in reduced sales of our products. Furthermore, the use of ABP-450, if approved, for indications other than those cleared by the FDA, may not effectively treat such conditions, which

could harm our reputation in the marketplace among physicians and patients. Any of these events could harm our business and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Our relationships with healthcare providers and physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

We are subject to applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the FCA, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we sell, market and distribute our products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry (e.g., healthcare providers, physicians and third party payors), are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. We also may be subject to patient information and privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

The Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits the knowing and willful offer, receipt, or payment of remuneration in exchange for or to induce the referral of patients or the use of products or services that would be paid for in whole or part by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal health care programs. Remuneration has been broadly defined to include anything of value, including but not limited to cash, improper discounts, and free or reduced price items and services. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Further, courts have found that if “one purpose” of remuneration is to induce referrals, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is violated. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, but the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. A claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA. Many states have similar laws that apply to their state health care programs as well as private payors. Violations of anti-kickback and other applicable laws can result in exclusion from federal health care programs and substantial civil and criminal penalties.

The federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the FCA, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment to, or approval by Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal healthcare programs, knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim or an obligation to pay or transmit money to the federal government, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. The FCA has been used to prosecute persons submitting claims for payment that are inaccurate or fraudulent, that are for services not provided as claimed, or for services that are not medically necessary. The FCA includes a whistleblower provision that allows individuals to bring actions on behalf of the federal government and share a portion of the recovery of successful claims. Some state law equivalents of the above federal laws, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA, apply to items or services regardless of whether the good or service was reimbursed by a government program, so called all-payor laws. These all-payor laws could apply to our sales and marketing activities even if the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA laws are inapplicable.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity can be found guilty of violating HIPAA without actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, and as amended again by the Final HIPAA Omnibus Rule, published in January 2013, which imposes certain obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of

individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization by covered entities subject to the rule, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and certain healthcare providers, as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information also implicate our business. HITECH also created new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition to other federal laws, state laws and foreign laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union, or the GDPR, create the potential for substantial penalties in the event of any non-compliance with the applicable data privacy and data protection laws.

The federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, and its implementing regulations, which requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. For the data submitted on or after January 1,2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non- physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulatory guidance. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies, healthcare providers and other third parties, including charitable foundations, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. Responding to investigations can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert management’s attention from the business. Any such investigation or settlement could increase our costs or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business.

If our marketing or other arrangements were determined to violate anti-kickback or related laws, including the FCA or an all-payor law, then we could be subject to penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect our business in an adverse way. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs.

State and federal authorities have aggressively targeted pharmaceutical companies for alleged violations of these anti-fraud statutes, based on improper research or consulting contracts with doctors, certain marketing arrangements with pharmacies and other healthcare providers that rely on volume-based pricing, off-label marketing schemes, and other improper promotional practices. Companies targeted in such prosecutions have paid substantial fines, have been ordered to implement extensive corrective action plans, and have in many cases become subject to consent decrees severely restricting the manner in which they conduct their business, among other consequences. Additionally, federal and state regulators have brought criminal actions against individual employees responsible for alleged violations. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our contractual relationships with providers or institutions or our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would materially harm our business.

Also, the FCPA and similar worldwide anti-bribery laws generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to non-United States officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Our internal control policies and procedures may not protect us from reckless or negligent acts committed by our employees, future distributors, partners, collaborators or agents. Violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could result in fines, penalties or prosecution and have a negative impact on our business, results of operations and reputation.

Legislative or regulatory healthcare reforms in the United States and other countries may make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory clearance or approval of ABP-450 and to produce, market, and distribute our products after clearance or approval is obtained.

From time to time, legislation is drafted and introduced in the United States Congress or other countries that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the regulatory clearance or approval, manufacture, and marketing of regulated products or the reimbursement thereof. In addition, regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. Any new regulations, revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of ABP-450. Such changes could, among other things, require:

Each of these would likely entail substantial time and cost and could materially harm our business and our financial results. In addition, delays in receipt of or failure to receive regulatory clearances or approvals for any future products would harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies, including from government shut downs, or other disruptions to these agencies’ operations, could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund R&D activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the United States government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

We are subject to stringent and often unsettled privacy laws, information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations related to data privacy and security and changes in such laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations could adversely affect our business.

We are subject to data privacy and protection laws and regulations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally identifying information or personal data, which among other things, impose certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide, and there has been an increasing focus on privacy and data protection issues with the potential to affect our business. Failure to comply with any of these laws and regulations could result in enforcement action against us, including fines, imprisonment of company officials and public censure, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

There are numerous United States federal and state laws and regulations relating to privacy and security of personal information. Data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new regulations coming into effect. For

example, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020 and requires companies that process information on California residents to make new disclosures to consumers about their data collection, use and sharing practices, allow consumers to opt out of certain data sharing with third parties and provide a new cause of action for data breaches. Additionally, California voters approved a new privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, in the November 3, 2020 election. Effective starting on January 1, 2023, the CPRA significantly modifies the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain sensitive personal information. The CPRA also created a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CPRA. New legislation proposed or enacted in various other states will continue to shape the data privacy environment nationally. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to confidential, sensitive and personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts.

In addition, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted breach notification laws that may require us to notify patients, employees or regulators in the event of unauthorized access to or disclosure of personal or confidential information experienced by us or our service providers. These laws are not consistent, and compliance in the event of a widespread data breach is difficult and may be costly. Moreover, states have been frequently amending existing laws, requiring attention to changing regulatory requirements. We also may be contractually required to notify patients or other counterparties of a security breach.

Although we may have contractual protections with our service providers, any actual or perceived security breach could harm our reputation and brand, expose us to potential liability or require us to expend significant resources on data security and in responding to any such actual or perceived breach. Any contractual protections we may have from our service providers may not be sufficient to adequately protect us from any such liabilities and losses, and we may be unable to enforce any such contractual protections.

In addition, the GDPR became applicable on May 25, 2018 in respect of processing operations carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment in the European Economic Area, or EEA, and any processing relating to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA and/or the monitoring of their behavior in the EEA.

While we do not at this time collect, store, use or process data on behalf of existing customers or for anyone residing in the United Kingdom or Europe, if we do so in the future, we will be subject to the rigorous and time-intensive policies of the GDPR. There is no assurance that our own limited privacy and security- related safeguards will protect us from all risks associated with data privacy and information security.

​

Risks Related to Being a Public Company and Ownership of Our Securities

The price of our common stock may be volatile.

The price of our common stock has been and is likely to continue to be volatile. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including the other risks described in this section of the report entitled “Risk Factors” and the following:

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the markets for SPAC post-business combination businesses, pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility. This volatility can often be unrelated to the operating performance of the underlying business. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of AEON’s operating performance.

Sales of a substantial number of our securities in the public market by our existing securityholders could cause the price of our common stock and warrants to fall.

Sales of a substantial number of our shares of common stock or warrants in the public market by the Registered Holders or by our other existing security holders, or the perception that those sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and

warrants and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. As of March 2024, holders of our warrants are entitled to exercise their warrants, on a cashless basis, in exchange for shares of our common stock, calculated based on the 10-day volume average weighted price prior to the Company’s receipt of the warrantholders’ notice. Such warrantholders may seek to monetize the return on their investment in the warrants quickly, which could adversely impact the price of our stock. We are unable to predict the effect that such sales may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock and warrants. The sale of all the securities, particularly at high volumes over a short period of time could result in a significant decline in the public trading price of our securities. Despite such a decline in the public trading price, some of the Registered Holders may still experience a positive rate of return on the securities they purchased due to the differences in the purchase prices described elsewhere in this report. Other security holders may not be able to experience positive rates of return on securities they purchase.

Additionally, we have agreed, at our expense, to prepare and file with the SEC certain registration statements providing for the resale of shares of common stock. The resale, or expected or potential resale, of a substantial number of our shares of common stock in the public market could adversely affect the market price for our shares of common stock and make it more difficult for you to sell your shares of common stock at times and prices that you feel are appropriate. In particular, as a result of the termination of the Forward Purchase Agreements, the Sellers are entitled to keep their shares and, following effectiveness of the registration statement, may resell a significant number of shares of common stock in the market with respect to the shares that they retained pursuant to the FPA Termination Agreements. In addition, a significant number of shares of common stock may be issued upon conversion of the Convertible Notes upon an Automatic Conversion or Optional Conversion (as defined in the Convertible Notes), and such shares of common stock may be resold by Daewoong in the future following effectiveness of a registration statement related thereto. Furthermore, we expect that, because there will be a large number of shares registered, the applicable selling securityholders will continue to offer such covered securities for a significant period of time, the precise duration of which cannot be predicted. Accordingly, the adverse market and price pressures resulting from an offering pursuant to a registration statement may continue for an extended period of time. In addition, because the current market price of our common stock is higher than the price certain selling securityholders paid for their securities, there is more likelihood that selling securityholders holding shares of common stock will sell their shares as soon as the applicable registration statement is declared effective and any applicable lock-up restrictions expire.

Certain existing stockholders of AEON acquired securities at a price below the current trading price of such securities, and may experience a positive rate of return based on the current trading price or at lower trading prices. Future investors in AEON may not experience a similar rate of return.

Prior to consummation of the Business Combination, certain existing stockholders of AEON acquired shares of common stock or Private Placement Warrants at prices below, and in some cases considerably below, the current trading price of our common stock or for no cash consideration at all. It is possible that these stockholders may experience a positive rate of return based on the current trading price or at lower trading prices.

Given the relatively lower purchase prices that some of our stockholders paid to acquire some of their securities compared to the current trading price of our shares of common stock, these stockholders, some of whom are registered holders pursuant to registration statements we are obligated to file to register the resale of shares of common stock, in some instances may earn a positive rate of return on their investment, which may be a significant positive rate of return, depending on the market price of our shares of common stock at the time that such stockholders choose to sell their shares of common stock. See the section of this Report titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for additional information on the potential profits the other registered holders may experience.

Fluctuations in our stock price may yield material changes in the valuation of the underlying derivatives securities associated with our capital structure, including our Contingent Consideration Shares and Forward Purchase Agreements.

We currently have multiple financial instruments, including underlying derivatives which we account for in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 815 Derivatives and Hedging: Embedded Derivatives. In accordance with the guidance, we value these derivatives at each reporting period and recognize the corresponding adjustments to fair value as changes to other income (expense), net in our Statements of Operations. The fair values are estimated using certain pricing models, which involve various inputs, including our current stock price as of the end of each reporting period. Period-over-period fluctuations in our stock price may result in material changes in the fair value of these derivatives, which in turn may materially impact (positively and negatively) our Statements of Operations.

We will require additional capital, which additional financing may result in restrictions on our operations or substantial dilution to our stockholders, to support the growth of our business, and this capital might not be available on acceptable terms, if at all.

To date, our primary sources of capital have been private placements of preferred stock, sales of shares of Evolus, debt financing agreements and revenue from introductory financing services. We cannot be certain when or if our operations will generate sufficient cash to fully fund our ongoing operations or the growth of our business. We intend to continue to make investments to support our business, which may require us to engage in equity or debt financings to secure additional funds. Additional financing may not be available on terms favorable to us, if at all. If adequate funds are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to invest in future growth opportunities, which could harm our business, operating results, and financial condition. If we incur additional debt, the debt holders would have rights senior to holders of common stock to make claims on our assets, and the terms of any debt could restrict our operations. If we undertake discretionary financing by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution.

We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at a price per share that is less than the price per share paid by current stockholders. If we sell common stock, convertible securities, or other equity securities in more than one transaction, stockholders may be further diluted by subsequent sales. Additionally, future equity financings may result in new investors receiving rights superior to our existing stockholders. Because our decision to issue securities in the future will depend on numerous considerations, including factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of any future issuances of debt or equity securities. As a result, our stockholders bear the risk of future issuances of debt or equity securities reducing the value of our common stock and diluting their interests.

We may incur significant costs from class action litigation due to the expected stock volatility.

The price of common stock may fluctuate for many reasons, including as a result of public announcements regarding the progress of development efforts for our main product candidate, ABP-450, the development efforts of competitors, the addition or departure of key personnel, variations in quarterly operating results and changes in market valuations of biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This risk is especially relevant to us because biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years, including since the Closing. In addition, recently there has been significant stock price volatility involving the shares of companies that have recently completed a business combination with a SPAC. When the market price of a stock has been volatile as our common stock’s price may be, holders of that stock have occasionally brought securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. Additionally, there has recently been a general increase in litigation against companies that have recently completed a business combination with a SPAC alleging fraud and other claims based on inaccurate or misleading disclosures. If any of our stockholders were to bring a lawsuit of this type against us, even if the lawsuit is without merit, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit. Any such lawsuit could also divert the time and attention of management.

Any failure to meet the continued listing requirements of NYSE American could result in a delisting of our common stock and our warrants.

If we fail to satisfy the continued listing requirements of NYSE American, such as failing to satisfy any applicable corporate governance requirements or the minimum closing bid price requirement, NYSE American may take steps to delist our securities. Such a delisting would likely have a negative effect on the price of our securities and would impair your ability to sell or purchase the securities when you wish to do so. In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow our securities to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our securities, prevent our securities from dropping below the NYSE American minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with NYSE American’s listing requirements. Additionally, if our securities are not listed on, or become delisted from, NYSE American for any reason, and are quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, an inter-dealer automated quotation system for equity securities that is not a national securities exchange, the liquidity and price of our securities may be more limited than if our securities were quoted or listed on NYSE American or another national securities exchange. You may be unable to sell your securities unless a market can be established or sustained.

We are an “emerging growth company” and it cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors, which may make it more difficult to compare our performance with other public companies.

We are an emerging growth company as defined in the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies for up to five years following the completion of the Merger, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. To the extent we continue to take advantage of any of these exemptions, the information that we provide stockholders may be different than what is available with respect to other public companies. Investors may find the our common stock less attractive because we will continue to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find the our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for the common stock, and the stock price may be more volatile.

An emerging growth company may elect to delay the adoption of new or revised accounting standards. Because we have made this election, Section 102(b)(2) of the JOBS Act allows us to delay adoption of new or revised accounting standards until those standards apply to non-public business entities. As a result, the financial statements contained in this report and those that we will file in the future may not be comparable to companies that comply with public business entities revised accounting standards effective dates.

We are also a “smaller reporting company” as such term is defined in the Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, meaning that the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates plus any proposed aggregate amount of gross proceeds to us as a result of any offering is less than $700 million and our annual revenue is less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company” which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in periodic reports and proxy statements. Investors could find our common stock less attractive because it may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and the trading price may be more volatile.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase our common stock could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our common stock price to fall.

We expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan through June 2024, including $15 million of committed financing related to the issuance of certain Convertible Notes with Daewoong. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” However, we have based these estimates on numerous assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could spend our available capital resources much faster than we currently expect or require more capital to fund our operations than we currently expect. Significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including further development of our product candidate ABP-450, preparing INDs or equivalent filings, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded R&D activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner as determined from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, existing investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. New investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock.

Pursuant to the 2023 Incentive Award Plan, or “the 2023 Plan”, our board of directors (the “Board”) or our compensation committee (the “Compensation Committee”) is authorized to grant equity-based awards to our employees, directors and consultants. Initially, the aggregate number of shares of our common stock that may be issued pursuant to stock awards under the 2023 Plan is 3,839,892 shares. Additionally, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under the 2023 Plan will automatically increase on January 1 of each year, beginning in 2024 and ending in 2033, by an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 4% of the number of fully-diluted number of shares outstanding (as calculated pursuant to the terms of the 2023 Plan) on the final day of the immediately preceding calendar year or (ii) such lesser number of shares as is determined by our Board.

Pursuant to the Employee Stock Purchase Program, or ESPP, our employees will have the opportunity to purchase shares of our common stock at a discount through accumulated payroll deductions. Initially, the aggregate number of shares of common stock that may be issued under the ESPP is 488,146 shares. In addition, the number of shares of common stock available for issuance under the ESPP will be annually increased on January 1 of each calendar year beginning in 2024 and ending in 2033 by an amount equal to the lesser of (a) 1% of the fully-diluted number of shares outstanding (as calculated pursuant to the terms of the ESPP) on the final day of the immediately preceding calendar year or (b) such lesser number of shares as is determined by our Board. Unless our Board elects not to increase the number of shares available for future grant each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause the price of our common stock to fall.

Our issuance of additional shares of common stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank would, all else being equal, have the following effects:

Our disclosure controls and procedures may not prevent or detect all errors or acts of fraud.

We must design our disclosure controls and procedures to reasonably assure that information we must disclose in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to management, and recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. We believe that any disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls and procedures, no matter how well-conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. For example, our directors or executive officers could inadvertently fail to disclose a new relationship or arrangement causing us to fail to make a required related party transaction disclosure. Additionally, controls and procedures can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by an unauthorized override of the controls. Accordingly, because of the inherent limitations in our control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

Reports published by analysts, including projections in those reports that differ from our actual results, could adversely affect the price and trading volume of our common stock.

We currently expect that securities research analysts will establish and publish their own periodic financial projections for the business of AEON. These projections may vary widely and may not accurately predict the results AEON actually achieves. AEON’s stock price may decline if its actual results do not match the projections of these securities research analysts. Similarly, if one or more of the analysts who write reports on AEON downgrades its stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about its business, AEON’s stock price could decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of AEON or fails to publish reports on AEON regularly, its stock price or trading volume could decline. While we expect research analyst coverage, if no analysts commence coverage of AEON, the trading price and volume for our common stock could be adversely affected.

The obligations associated with being a public company involve significant expenses and require significant resources and management attention, which may divert from AEON’s business operations.

As a public company, AEON is subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Exchange Act requires the filing of annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to a public company’s business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that a public company establish and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting. The listing requirements of NYSE American also require that we satisfy certain corporate governance requirements. As a result, AEON will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that AEON did not previously incur. AEON’s entire management team and many of its other employees will need to devote substantial time to compliance, and may not effectively or efficiently manage its transition into a public company.

These rules and regulations will result in AEON incurring substantial legal, financial and accounting compliance costs in addition to other expenses and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our consolidated net loss, and may require us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. For example, these rules and regulations will likely make it more difficult and more expensive for AEON to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and it may be required to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. As a result, it may be difficult for AEON to attract and retain qualified people to serve on its Board, its Board committees or as executive officers.

Provisions in AEON’s certificate of incorporation, AEON’s bylaws and Delaware law have anti-takeover effects that discourage an acquisition of AEON by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders, and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management, which could depress the trading price of our common stock.

AEON’s certificate of incorporation, bylaws, and Delaware law contain provisions that may have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. AEON’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws include provisions that:

In addition, because we are incorporated in the State of Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Any provision of our certificate of incorporation, bylaws or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock, and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

AEON’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws designate the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the exclusive forum for certain state law litigation that may be initiated by our stockholders and the United States federal district courts as the exclusive forum for certain securities law actions, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to litigate disputes with us in a different judicial forum and increase the costs for our stockholders to pursue certain claims against us.

Pursuant to AEON’s bylaws and certificate of incorporation, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the sole and exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under Delaware statutory or common law: (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; (ii) any action asserting a claim of

breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our current or former directors, officers or employees to us or our stockholders; (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the DGCL, AEON’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws (including their interpretation, validity or enforceability); or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This exclusive forum provision will not apply to any causes of action arising under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. Stockholders cannot waive compliance with the Securities Act, the Exchange Act or any other federal securities laws or the rules and regulations thereunder.

Unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternate forum, the United States federal district courts shall be the sole and exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. In addition, our bylaws provide that any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock is deemed to have notice of and consented to these exclusive forum provisions. The forum selection provisions in our bylaws may limit our stockholders’ ability to litigate disputes with us in a judicial forum that they find favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees, which may discourage the filing of lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and employees, even though an action, if successful, might benefit our stockholders. In addition, these forum selection provisions may impose additional litigation costs for stockholders who determine to pursue any such lawsuits against us.

General Risks

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, including but not limited to our information technology systems, infrastructure and data, or those of our third-party vendors, contractors or consultants failing, becoming unavailable, or suffering security breaches, losses or leakages of data and other disruptions, which could result in disruption of our services, compromise sensitive information (including personal information) related to our business, or prevent us from accessing critical information, potentially exposing us to liability or otherwise adversely affecting our business.

We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit confidential information (including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. We also have outsourced elements of our operations to third parties, and as a result we manage a number of third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants who have access to our confidential information.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to breakdown or other damage from service interruptions, computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions, including ransomware attacks, over the internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusions, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber-terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our current or future product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical study data from completed or any future ongoing or planned clinical studies could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach was to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur material legal claims and liability, damage to our reputation, and the further development of our product candidate could be delayed.

We cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology will prevent breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations, or financial condition. For example, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, it could result in a material disruption or delay of the development of ABP-450 and future product candidates. Furthermore, significant disruptions of our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or security breaches could result in the loss, misappropriation, or unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information, which could result in financial, legal, business and reputational harm to us. For example, any such event that leads to actual or perceived unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our customers or employees, could harm our reputation directly, compel us to comply with federal or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, and otherwise subject

us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We rely on third parties to provide services and technology necessary for the operation of our business. Any failure of one or more of our vendors, suppliers or licensors to provide these services or technology could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We rely on third-party vendors to provide critical services, including, among other things, services related to accounting, billing, human resources, and information technology that we cannot or do not provide ourselves. We depend on these vendors to ensure that our corporate infrastructure will consistently meet our business requirements. The ability of these third-party vendors to successfully provide reliable and high quality services is subject to technical and operational uncertainties that are beyond our control.

While we may be entitled to damages if our vendors fail to perform under their agreements with us, the amount of damages we receive may be limited. In addition, we do not know whether we will be able to collect on any award of damages or that these damages would be sufficient to cover the actual costs we would incur as a result of any vendor’s failure to perform under its agreement with us. Any failure of our corporate infrastructure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Upon expiration or termination of any of our agreements with third-party vendors, we may not be able to replace the services provided to us in a timely manner or on terms and conditions, including service levels and cost, that are favorable to us and a transition from one vendor to another vendor could subject us to operational delays and inefficiencies until the transition is complete.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will rely in part on the research and reports that equity research analysts publish about us and our business. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by equity research analysts. Equity research analysts may elect not to provide research coverage of our common stock, and such lack of research coverage may adversely affect the market price of our common stock. In the event we obtain equity research analyst coverage, we will not have any control of the analysts or the content and opinions included in their reports. The price of our common stock could decline if one or more equity research analysts downgrades our common stock or issues other unfavorable commentary or research. If one or more equity research analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which in turn could cause the trading price or trading volume of our common stock to decline.

Operating as a public company requires us to incur substantial costs and requires substantial management attention. In addition, our management team has limited experience managing a public company and the requirements of being a public company may strain our resources, divert management’s attention and affect our ability to attract and retain additional executive management and qualified board members.

As a public company, we will incur substantial legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. For example, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, the applicable requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the rules and regulations of the SEC. The rules and regulations of NYSE American also apply to us. As part of the new requirements, we have established and will need to maintain effective disclosure and financial controls and have made and will need to maintain changes to our corporate governance practices. We expect that compliance with these requirements will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming or costly, and increase demand on our systems and resources.

We are leanly staffed and some of our management and other key personnel have limited experience managing a public company and preparing public filings. In addition, as a public company, certain of our management and other key personnel will be required to divert attention from other business matters to devote substantial time to the reporting and other requirements of being a public company. In particular, we expect to incur significant expense and devote substantial management effort to complying with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We will need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge.

As a result of disclosure of information in this report and in filings required of a public company, our business and financial condition will become more visible, which may result in threatened or actual litigation, including by stockholders and competitors. If such claims are successful, our business and operating results could be adversely affected, and even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of our management and adversely affect our business and operating results.

In addition, as a result of our disclosure obligations as a public company, we have reduced flexibility and are under pressure to focus on short-term results, which may adversely affect our ability to achieve long-term profitability.

​

​

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

​

Not applicable.

​

Item 1C. Cybersecurity

We maintain a cybersecurity risk management program designed to identify, assess, manage, mitigate, and respond to cybersecurity threats and to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of our critical systems and information.

​

The underlying process and controls of our cyber risk management program incorporate recognized best practices and standards for cybersecurity and information technology (“IT”), including the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF). We have an annual risk assessment performed by a third-party specialist of our cyber risk management program against the NIST CSF. This assessment identifies, quantifies, and categorizes material cyber risks. In addition, the Company, in conjunction with our third-party specialists, have developed a risk mitigation plan to address such risks, and where necessary, to remediate potential vulnerabilities identified through the assessment process.

​

We maintain policies and processes over areas such as information security, IT asset lifecycle, data destruction, backup, access provisioning, and maintenance of network accounts, to help govern the processes put in place by management designed to protect our IT assets, data, and services from threats and vulnerabilities. We partner with cybersecurity providers and consultants (collectively, “providers”) leveraging third-party technology and expertise. These providers are a key part of our cybersecurity risk management strategy and infrastructure. These providers deliver services including systems inventory monitoring, vulnerability testing, user management including restricted access of privileged accounts, capacity monitoring, network protection and monitoring, endpoint protection, managed detection and response, remote monitoring and management, cybersecurity user awareness training, data backup management, incident response, cybersecurity strategy, and cyber risk advisory, assessment, and remediation.

​

Our management team, in conjunction with our third-party IT and cybersecurity service providers, is responsible for oversight and administration of our cyber risk management program, and for informing senior management and other relevant stakeholders regarding the prevention, detection, mitigation, and remediation of cybersecurity incidents. Our management team, in conjunction with our strategic third-party partners, oversees our cybersecurity technologies, initiatives, and processes, and relies on threat intelligence as well as other information obtained from governmental, public, or private sources, including external consultants engaged for strategic cyber risk management, advisory and decision making.

​

We have implemented third-party risk management processes to manage the risks associated with reliance on vendors, critical service providers, and other third-parties that may lead to a service disruption or an adverse cybersecurity incident. This includes an assessment of vendors during the selection and onboarding process, review of System and Organization Control (SOC) reports on an annual basis and a regular review of vendor contracts.

​

We face risks from cybersecurity threats that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows or reputation. We acknowledge that the risk of cyber incidents is prevalent in the current threat landscape and that a future cyber incident may occur in the normal course of business. The Company has not identified risks from known cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any prior cybersecurity incidents, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect us, including our operations, business strategy, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We proactively seek to detect and investigate unauthorized attempts and attacks against IT assets, data, and services, and to prevent their occurrence and recurrence where practicable; however, potential vulnerabilities to known or unknown threats will still remain.

Further, there is increasing regulation regarding responses to cybersecurity incidents, including reporting to regulators, investors, and additional stakeholders, which could subject the Company to additional liability and reputational harm. In response to such risks, we have implemented initiatives such as implementation of the cybersecurity risk assessment process and development of an incident response plan.

For more information, see the section titled “Risk Factor— Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures, including but not limited to our information technology systems, infrastructure and data, or those of our third-party vendors, contractors or consultants failing, becoming unavailable, or suffering security breaches, losses or leakages of data and other disruptions, which could result in disruption of our services, compromise sensitive information (including personal information) related to our business, or prevent us from accessing critical information, potentially exposing us to liability or otherwise adversely affecting our business.”

Cybersecurity Governance

Our Board considers cybersecurity risk as part of its risk oversight function and has delegated to the Audit Committee (the “Committee”) oversight of cybersecurity, data privacy and other information technology risks. The Committee oversees management’s implementation of our cybersecurity risk management program and cybersecurity risk exposures, and the steps taken by management to monitor and mitigate cybersecurity risks. The Committee is composed of members of our board of directors with diverse expertise, including risk management, biotechnology, chief executive officer and chief financial officer roles, and multiple public company directorships, which has prepared them to oversee our cybersecurity risks.

The Committee receives periodic reports from management on our cybersecurity risks. In addition, management updates the Committee, as necessary, regarding any material cybersecurity incidents, as well as any incidents with lesser impact potential.

The Committee reports to the Board regarding its activities, including those related to cybersecurity. The Board also receives briefings from management on our cybersecurity risk management program. Board members receive presentations on cybersecurity topics from our Chief Financial Officer and EVP, Chief Legal Officer, internal security consultants and external experts as part of the Board’s continuing education on topics that impact public companies.

​

Our management team, including our Chief Financial Officer and EVP, Chief Legal Officer, is responsible for assessing and managing our material risks from cybersecurity threats. The team has primary responsibility for our overall cybersecurity risk management program and supervises efforts to prevent, detect, mitigate and remediate cybersecurity risks and incidents through various means, which may include briefings from internal security consultants; threat intelligence and other information obtained from governmental, public or private sources, including external consultants engaged by us; and alerts and reports produced by security tools deployed in the information technology environment. Our management team’s experience includes monitoring the cybersecurity landscape for new risks and best practices, developing and executing cybersecurity strategies, overseeing related governance policies, testing compliance with applicable technical standards, remediating known risks and leading employee training programs.

​

​

Item 2. Properties

​

Our principal executive office is located at 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750, Irvine, California 92614. In September 2021, we entered into a lease agreement for 8,000 square feet of office space located at this facility, with a lease term of 36 months beginning in December 2021 and ending in December 2024. We may look for additional or alternate space for our operations, and we believe that suitable additional or alternative space will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

​

​

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

On September 18, 2023, Odeon Capital Group LLC (“Odeon”) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that the Company failed to pay Odeon’s deferred underwriting fee of $1.25 million. Odeon claims that it served as the underwriter for Priveterra Acquisition Corp., the special purpose acquisition company with which Old AEON merged with and into in July 2023. Odeon seeks monetary damages for the full amount of its claimed underwriting fee, punitive damages,

attorneys’ fees and other amounts. On November 16, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss certain claims included in Odeon’s complaint.

​

​

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

​

​

PART II

​

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity

​

Market Information

​

Our common stock trades on NYSE American under the symbol “AEON”. Trading of our common stock commenced on July 24, 2023 in connection with the consummation of our Merger. Prior to that time, there was no established public trading market for our common stock.

​

Holders

​

As of March 26, 2024, there were approximately 643 holders of record of our common stock. These numbers do not include beneficial owners whose shares were held in street name. The actual number of holders of our common stock is greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers or held by other nominees.

​

Dividends

​

The Company has never declared dividends on the Company’s equity securities, and currently does not plan to declare dividends on shares of the Company’s common stock in the foreseeable future. The Company expects to retain future earnings, if any, for use in the operation and expansion of the Company’s business. The payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of the Board and will depend upon such factors as earning levels, capital requirements, overall financial condition and any other factors deemed relevant by the Board.

​

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, the Company did not make any unregistered issuances or sales of equity securities that were not reported in a Current Report on Form 8-K.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

​

​

Item 6. Reserved

​

​

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

​

The following discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations should be read together with the consolidated financial statements and the related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, such as those set forth in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and in the section of this Reported captioned “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”, actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. Unless the context otherwise requires, references to “we”, “us”, “our” and “the Company” refer to the business and operations of AEON Biopharma, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the Merger (“Old AEON” or the “Predecessor”) and to AEON Biopharma, Inc. (“AEON”) following the consummation of the Merger.

On December 12, 2022, Old AEON and Priveterra Acquisition Corp. (“Priveterra”), a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or other similar business combination with one or more target businesses, entered into a Business Combination and Merger Agreement (the “Business Combination Agreement”). On July 21, 2023, the parties consummated the transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement (collectively referred to as the “Merger”). In connection with the closing of the Merger (the” Closing”), Priveterra changed its name from Priveterra Acquisition Corp. to AEON Biopharma, Inc.

Priveterra was deemed the accounting acquirer in the Merger based on an analysis of the criteria outlined in Accounting Standards Codification 805, Business Combinations. Old AEON was deemed to be the predecessor entity based on an analysis of the criteria outlined in the Accounting Standards Codification 805, Business Combinations. Accordingly, the historical financial statements of Old AEON became the historical financial statements of the combined company upon the consummation of the Merger. As a result, the financial statements included in this report reflect (i) the historical operating results of Old AEON prior to the Merger (Predecessor); and (ii) the combined results of the Company following the Closing (Successor). The accompanying financial information includes a predecessor period, which includes the periods through July 21, 2023 concurrent with the Merger, and the successor period from July 22, 2023 through December 31, 2023. A black-line between the Successor and Predecessor periods has been placed in the consolidated financial statements and in the tables to the notes to the statements to highlight the lack of comparability between these two periods and differentiate the cut-off of these periods.

Overview

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing our proprietary botulinum toxin complex, ABP-450 (prabotulinumtoxinA) injection (“ABP-450”) for debilitating medical conditions, with an initial focus on the neurology and gastroenterology markets. We plan to develop ABP-450 to address the estimated $3.0 billion global therapeutic botulinum toxin market, which is projected to grow to $4.4 billion in 2027, according to the Decision Resources Group Therapeutic Botulinum Toxin Market Analysis Global as of 2021. We recently completed a Phase 2 study of ABP-450 for the treatment of cervical dystonia and have an ongoing Phase 2 study of ABP-450 for the treatment of both chronic and episodic migraine. ABP-450 is the same botulinum toxin complex that is currently approved and marketed for cosmetic indications by Evolus, Inc. under the name Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union. ABP-450 is manufactured by Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Daewoong”) in compliance with current good manufacturing processes (“cGMP”) in a facility that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”), Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”). We have exclusive development and distribution rights for therapeutic indications of ABP-450 in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and certain other international territories. We have built a highly experienced management team with specific experience in biopharmaceutical and botulinum toxin development and commercialization.

Botulinum toxins have proven to be a highly versatile therapeutic biologic, with over 230 therapeutic uses documented in published scientific literature and nine approved therapeutic indications in the United States. Our initial development programs for ABP-450 are directed at migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis. We selected these initial indications based on a comprehensive product assessment screen designed to identify indications where we believe ABP-450 can deliver significant value to patients, physicians and payors and where its clinical, regulatory and commercial characteristics suggest viability. We believe that ABP-450 has application in a broad range of indications and we plan to continue to explore additional indications that satisfy our product assessment screens.

The FDA accepted our investigational new drug (“IND”) application for ABP-450 as a preventative treatment for migraine in October 2020, and we began treating patients in our Phase 2 clinical study beginning in March 2021. On October 19, 2023, we

announced topline results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The Phase 2 clinical trial for episodic migraine did not meet its primary endpoint, though it did show statistical significance on multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, including the percentage of patients achieving a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in monthly migraine days and 75% in monthly migraine days during the weeks 21 to 24 of the treatment period and improvements on certain patient and rating scales. We expect to announce an interim readout of topline data related to the chronic cohort of our Phase 2 migraine study in the second quarter of 2024, with full topline data to be released in the third quarter of 2024.

The FDA accepted our IND application for ABP-450 as a treatment for cervical dystonia in October 2020, and we began treating patients in our Phase 2 clinical study beginning in April 2021. Topline data from the Phase 2 study, released in September 2022, confirmed that ABP-450 met all primary endpoints and a number of other key secondary endpoints, supporting the safety and efficacy of ABP-450 in reducing signs and symptoms associated with cervical dystonia. ABP-450 demonstrated adverse event rates similar to, or lower than, other botulinum toxin products for the treatment of cervical dystonia. ABP-450 also demonstrated potential for efficacy similar to, or better than, other botulinum toxin products for the treatment of cervical dystonia. We are in discussions with the FDA regarding the design of our Phase 3 study in cervical dystonia, which we expect to commence based on the availability of capital resources.

In December 2020, we initiated a preclinical gastroparesis study with 42 primates receiving multiple injections of ABP-450 across four dose ranges. We completed this preclinical study in January 2022. Following the preclinical study, we submitted an IND to the FDA and received a letter in May 2022 confirming that the IND-opening Phase 2a clinical study may proceed. We continue to evaluate various pathways to most efficiently advance this clinical development program.

ABP-450 has the same 900 kDa complex size as Botox. We believe physicians generally prefer the performance characteristics of the complete 900 kDa botulinum toxin complex for therapeutic uses and that this characteristic will provide ABP-450, if approved, a competitive advantage over other non-Botox therapeutic botulinum toxins currently on the market or in development. ABP-450, if approved, will be the only therapeutic botulinum toxin with significantly similar physiochemical properties as Botox.

We license ABP-450 from Daewoong, a South Korean pharmaceutical manufacturer, and have exclusive development and distribution rights for therapeutic indications in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and certain other international territories. Daewoong licenses the same 900 kDa botulinum toxin to Evolus for cosmetic indications, which it markets and sells under the name Jeuveau in the United States and Nuceiva in Canada and the European Union.

We have never been profitable from operations and, as of December 31, 2023, we had an accumulated deficit of $473.6 million. We have never generated revenue from ABP-450. Losses from operations were $29.6 million, income from operations of $29.6 million and loss from operations of $48.4 million for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022, respectively. Consolidated net loss attributable to our common stockholders were $60.7 million, income of $24.0 million and loss of $52.6 million for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022, respectively. As of December 31, 2023, we had $5.2 million in cash. We have concluded that we do not have sufficient cash to fund our operations for 12 months from the date of our financial statements without additional financing, and as a result, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan through June 2024, including $15 million of committed financing related to the issuance of certain Convertible Notes with Daewoong. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” Any further development of ABP-450 for any indication, including the completion of the Phase 2 open-label extension study in migraine, any Phase 3 trials for migraine, and any additional studies in cervical dystonia, will require additional funding, which may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all.

We do not expect to receive any revenue from ABP-450 or any future product candidates that we develop unless and until we obtain regulatory approval and commercialize ABP-450 or any future product candidates. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing net operating losses for the foreseeable future as we seek regulatory approval, prepare for and, if approved, proceed to commercialization of ABP-450.

We utilize clinical research organizations (“CROs”), to carry out our clinical development and we do not yet have a sales organization. We expect to incur significant expenses related to building our commercialization infrastructure, including marketing,

sales and distribution functions, inventory build prior to commercial launch, training and deploying a specialty sales force and implementing a targeted marketing campaign.

Description of the Merger, Forward Purchase Agreements and Convertible Note Subscription

Merger

At the effective time of the Merger (the “Effective Time”), (i) each outstanding share of Old AEON common stock (on an as-converted basis after taking into effect the conversion of the outstanding warrants of Old AEON exercisable for shares of Old AEON preferred stock, the conversion of the shares of Old AEON preferred stock into Old AEON common stock in accordance with the governing documents of Old AEON as of the Effective Time, the conversion of the outstanding convertible notes of Old AEON into Old AEON common stock in accordance with the terms of such convertible notes and after giving effect to the issuance of Old AEON common stock in connection with the merger of ABP Sub, Inc. with and into Old AEON) issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time converted into the right to receive approximately 2.328 shares of our Class A common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (“common stock”). In addition, each share of Priveterra Class B common stock (“Founder Shares”), par value $0.0001 per share, issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time converted into one share of common stock (of which 3,450,000 Founder Shares are subject to certain vesting and forfeiture conditions).

Forward Purchase Agreements

In addition, Priveterra entered into separate Forward Purchase Agreements with each of ACM ARRT J LLC (“ACM”), and Polar Multi-Strategy Master Fund (“Polar”), on June 29, 2023, for an OTC Equity Prepaid Forward Transaction (each, a “Forward Purchase Agreement” and together, the “Forward Purchase Agreements”). The Forward Purchase Agreements provided that each of Polar and ACM would separately be paid directly an aggregate cash amount (the “Prepayment Amount”), which was equal to an aggregate of $66.7 million based on the product of (i) 6,275,000 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock (the “Additional Shares”) and (ii) the redemption price per share of $10.63.

In satisfaction of the Prepayment Amount, on July 21, 2023, $66.7 million was obligated to be paid from the purchase of the Additional Shares by each of ACM and Polar pursuant to the terms of certain FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreements between Priveterra and each of ACM and Polar.

On March 18, 2024, we entered into separate termination agreements with each of ACM and Polar terminating their respective Forward Purchase Agreements (each, an “FPA Termination Agreement” and together, the “FPA Termination Agreements”). The FPA Termination Agreement with ACM provides that (i) ACM will retain 3,100,000 previously issued Additional Shares held by ACM pursuant to its respective Forward Purchase Agreement and subscription agreement (the “ACM Retained Shares”) and (ii) we will be subject to up to $1.5 million in liquidated damages if we fail to meet certain registration requirements for the ACM Retained Shares, subject to certain conditions set forth in ACM’s respective FPA Termination Agreement. The Termination Agreement with Polar provides that (i) Polar will retain 3,175,000 previously issued Additional Shares held by Polar pursuant to its respective Forward Purchase Agreement and subscription agreement (the “Polar Retained Shares”) and (ii) we will be subject to up to $1.5 million in liquidated damages if we fail to meet certain registration requirements for the Polar Retained Shares, subject to certain conditions set forth in Polar’s respective FPA Termination Agreement. We did not have access to the Prepayment Amount at any time following the Closing and, pursuant to the FPA Termination Agreements, ACM and Polar will retain the Prepayment Amount in full. The potential aggregate liquidated damages of up to $3.0 million and the terminated access to the Prepayment Amount may adversely affect our liquidity and capital needs.

Convertible Note Subscription

On March 19, 2024, we entered into a subscription agreement with Daewoong (the “Subscription Agreement”) relating to our sale and issuance of senior secured convertible notes (each, a “Convertible Note” and together, the “Convertible Notes”) in the principal amount of up to $15.0 million, which are convertible into shares of common stock, subject to certain conditions and limitations set forth in each Convertible Note. Each Convertible Note will contain customary events of default, will accrue interest at an annual rate of 15.79% and will have a maturity date that is three years from the funding date, unless earlier repurchased, converted or redeemed in accordance with its terms prior to such date. We will use the net proceeds from each Convertible Note to support the late-stage clinical development of ABP-450 and for general working capital purposes. Pursuant to the terms of the Subscription Agreement, on March

24, 2024, we issued and sold to Daewoong one Convertible Note in the principal amount of $5.0 million. The Subscription Agreement further provides that we will issue and sell to Daewoong a second Convertible Note in the principal amount of $10.0 million no later than thirty (30) days following our compliance with certain conditions set forth in the Subscription Agreement, including our execution of an amendment to that certain License and Supply Agreement, by and between us and Daewoong, dated December 20, 2019, as amended on July 29, 2022, January 8, 2023 and April 24, 2023 (the “License Agreement”).

​

On March 19, 2024, we entered into a Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement (the “License Agreement Amendment”) with Daewoong, which amends the License Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement Amendment, the License Agreement will terminate if, over any six month period, (a) we cease to commercialize ABP-450 in certain territories specified in the License Agreement and (b) we cease to advance any clinical studies of ABP-450 in such territories. The License Agreement Amendment also provides that, in the event that the License Agreement is terminated for the foregoing reasons, Daewoong will have the right to purchase all Know-How (as defined in the License Agreement) related to ABP-450 for a price of $1.00 (the “Termination Purchase Right”). The Termination Purchase Right will terminate and expire upon Daewoong’s sale of 50% of its common stock, including common stock held by its affiliates and common stock that would be issued upon an Automatic Conversion or Optional Conversion (as defined in the Convertible Notes).

As a result of becoming a public company, we will need to engage additional resources and/or hire additional staff and implement processes and procedures to address public company regulatory requirements and customary practices. We expect to incur additional annual expenses for, among other things, directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, director fees and additional internal and external accounting, legal and administrative resources and fees.

Components of Our Results of Operations

Revenue

We have generated no revenue from the sale of products and do not anticipate deriving any product revenue unless and until we receive regulatory approval for, and are able to successfully commercialize, ABP-450.

Operating Expenses

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses

Selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) expenses consist primarily of compensation for personnel, including stock-based compensation, management, finance, legal, and regulatory functions. Other SG&A expenses include travel expenses, market research and analysis, conferences and trade shows, professional services fees, including legal, audit and tax fees, insurance costs, general corporate expenses, and allocated facilities-related expenses. We anticipate that our SG&A expenses will increase in the future to support our continued research and development (“R&D”) activities. Additionally, we anticipate increased costs associated with being a public company, including expenses related to services associated with maintaining compliance with the requirements of the NYSE American and the SEC, insurance, and investor relations costs. We expect to incur increased costs associated with establishing sales, marketing, and commercialization functions in advance of potential future regulatory approvals and commercialization of our product candidates. If ABP-450 obtains United States regulatory approval for any indication, we expect that we would incur significantly increased expenses associated with building a sales and marketing team and funding commercial activities.

Research and Development Expenses

Our R&D expenses are primarily attributed to the development of ABP-450 for migraine, cervical dystonia and gastroparesis. Due to the stage of our development and our ability to use resources across all of our programs, most of our R&D costs are not recorded on a program-specific basis. We expect our R&D expenses to continue to increase as we continue our Phase 2 clinical studies for ABP-450 to treat migraine, commence a Phase 2 study of ABP-450 for gastroparesis, and as we develop and initiate a Phase 3 study of ABP-450 in cervical dystonia. R&D expenses associated with these studies will include third-party costs such as expenses incurred under agreements with CROs, the cost of consultants who assist with the development of ABP-450 on a program-specific basis, investigator grants, sponsored research, product costs in connection with acquiring ABP-450 from Daewoong for use in conducting preclinical and clinical studies, and other third-party expenses attributable to the development of our product candidates.

R&D activities will be critical to achieving our business strategy. As our pipeline programs enter the later stages of clinical development, we will generally incur greater development costs than those programs incurred in the earlier stages of clinical development, primarily due to the increased size and duration of later- stage clinical studies. We expect our R&D expenses to be significant over the next several years as we advance the clinical development of ABP-450 and prepare to seek regulatory approval.

As a result, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of our programs or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates. Our R&D activities may be subject to change from time to time as we evaluate our priorities and available resources.

Change in Fair Value of Contingent Consideration

The Company determined that the Contingent Consideration Shares would be classified as a liability on the Successor’s consolidated balance sheets and remeasured at each reporting period with changes to fair value recorded to the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income.

Other (Loss) Income, Net

Other (loss) income, net primarily consists of gains and losses resulting from the remeasurement of the fair value of our convertible notes, forward purchase agreements, warrant liabilities, each described below, at each balance sheet date.

Change in fair value of convertible notes – The Company elected the fair value option to account for its convertible notes, with the subsequent changes in fair value recorded in the Predecessor’s consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive (loss) income.

Change in fair value of forward purchase agreement and make whole derivative – The Company has determined that each of its forward purchase agreements entered in connection with the Merger is a freestanding hybrid financial instrument comprising a subscription receivable and embedded features, which have been bifurcated and accounted for separately as derivative instruments. The Company has recorded the derivatives as liabilities and measured them at fair value with the initial value of the derivative recorded as a loss “on the line” in the Successor’s opening accumulated deficit. On the line describes those transactions triggered by the consummation of the Merger that are not recognized in the consolidated financial statements of the Predecessor or the Successor as they are not directly attributable to either period but instead were contingent on the Merger. Subsequent changes in the bifurcated derivatives are recorded in the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income.

Change in fair value of warrants – Changes in the estimated fair value of our warrant liabilities are recognized as a non-cash gain or loss on the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income.

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the periods indicated (in thousands):

​

​

​

Comparison of the periods from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor), to the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor)

Operating Expenses

Selling, General and Administrative (SG&A) Expenses

SG&A expenses were $9.8 million and $9.9 million for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor), respectively, an increase of $6.1 million, or 45%, compared to $13.7 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor). The increase in SG&A expenses was primarily attributable to an increase of $5.0 million in legal expenses and professional fees related to the Merger and $1.1 million of stock-based compensation expense, of which $0.9 million is related to the repricing of stock options in connection with the Merger.

Research and Development (R&D) Expenses

R&D expenses were $19.8 million and $13.2 million for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor), respectively, a decrease of $1.7 million, or 5%, compared to $34.8 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor). The decrease was primarily attributable to $2.7 million decrease in R&D expenses due to wind down of Phase 2 clinical trials related to cervical dystonia in 2023, offset by increases of $0.6 million related to payroll and recruiting in the R&D department and $0.2 million related to stock-based compensation expense, of which $0.1 million is related to the repricing of stock options in connection with the Merger.

Change in Fair Value of Contingent Consideration

The Company recognized a gain of $52.8 million related to the change in the fair value of the contingent consideration liability for the period from July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor). See Note 6 Fair Value Measurements to the consolidated financial statements for further discussion. The gain of $52.8 million is primarily due to decrease in stock price used in the initial valuation of $10.84 to $7.20 at December 31, 2023.

Other Income (Loss), Net

Other income (loss), net was loss of $31.0 million and $5.5 million for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor), respectively, an increase in net other loss of $32.4 million, compared to loss of $4.1 million during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor). The change is due to loss on fair value of embedded forward purchase agreements and derivative liabilities of $8.4 million (Successor), loss of $19.4 million related to the change in value of convertible notes (Predecessor), income of $2.3 million for change in fair value of warrants (Successor), $11.8 million loss related to the change in fair value of embedded forward purchase agreements and derivative liabilities (Predecessor) compared to the loss during the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor) primarily related to a $4.4 million increase in fair value of convertible notes.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our primary sources of capital have been debt financing (Predecessor) and equity financing (Successor). We have experienced recurring losses from operations and have a net capital deficiency and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. As of December 31, 2023 (Successor), we had reported cash of $5.2 million and an accumulated deficit of $473.6 million.

On July 21, 2023, the Company closed the Merger. The funding available to the Company at the Closing included approximately $30 million of committed financing from existing and new AEON investors, as well as the cash remaining in Priveterra’s trust account after redemptions. The committed financings available immediately at the Closing provided the capital necessary to consummate the Merger and provided sufficient proceeds to fund the Company through the announcement of topline data from the Company’s Phase 2 study with ABP-450 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, which occurred in October 2023.

Prior to the Merger, Priveterra had entered into separate Forward Purchase Agreements with each of ACM and Polar. The Forward Purchase Agreements provided that each of Polar and ACM would separately be paid directly the Prepayment Amount, which was equal to an aggregate of $66.7 million based on the product of (i) 6,275,000 Additional Shares and (ii) the redemption price per share of $10.63. In satisfaction of the Prepayment Amount, on July 21, 2023, $66.7 million was obligated to be paid from the purchase of the Additional Shares by each of ACM and Polar pursuant to the terms of certain FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreements between Priveterra and each of ACM and Polar.

On March 18, 2024, we entered into separate FPA Termination Agreements with each of ACM and Polar terminating their respective Forward Purchase Agreements. The FPA Termination Agreement with ACM provides that (i) ACM will retain 3,100,000 previously issued Additional Shares held by ACM pursuant to its respective Forward Purchase Agreement and subscription agreement and (ii) we will be subject to up to $1.5 million in liquidated damages if we fail to meet certain registration requirements for the ACM Retained Shares, subject to certain conditions set forth in ACM’s respective FPA Termination Agreement. The Termination Agreement with Polar provides that (i) Polar will retain 3,175,000 previously issued Additional Shares held by Polar pursuant to its respective Forward Purchase Agreement and subscription agreement and (ii) we will be subject to up to $1.5 million in liquidated damages if we fail to meet certain registration requirements for the Polar Retained Shares, subject to certain conditions set forth in Polar’s respective FPA Termination Agreement. We did not have access to the Prepayment Amount at any time following the Closing and, pursuant to the FPA Termination Agreements, ACM and Polar will retain the Prepayment Amount in full. The potential aggregate liquidated damages of up to $3.0 million and the terminated access to the Prepayment Amount may adversely affect our liquidity and capital needs.

On March 19, 2024, we entered into the Subscription Agreement with Daewoong relating to our sale and issuance of Convertible Notes in the principal amount of up to $15.0 million, which are convertible into shares of common stock, subject to certain conditions and limitations set forth in each Convertible Note. Each Convertible Note will contain customary events of default, will accrue interest at an annual rate of 15.79% and will have a maturity date that is three years from the funding date, unless earlier repurchased,

converted or redeemed in accordance with its terms prior to such date. We will use the net proceeds from each Convertible Note to support the late-stage clinical development of ABP-450 and for general working capital purposes. Pursuant to the terms of the Subscription Agreement, on March 24, 2024, we issued and sold to Daewoong one Convertible Note in the principal amount of $5.0 million. The Subscription Agreement further provides that we will issue and sell to Daewoong a second Convertible Note in the principal amount of $10.0 million no later than thirty (30) days following our compliance with certain conditions set forth in the Subscription Agreement, including our execution of an amendment to the License Agreement with Daewoong.

On March 19, 2024, we entered into the License Agreement Amendment with Daewoong, which amends the License Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement Amendment, the License Agreement will terminate if, over any six month period, (a) we cease to commercialize ABP-450 in certain territories specified in the License Agreement and (b) we cease to advance any clinical studies of ABP-450 in such territories. The License Agreement Amendment also provides that, in the event that the License Agreement is terminated for the foregoing reasons, Daewoong will have the right to purchase all Know-How (as defined in the License Agreement) related to ABP-450 for a price of $1.00. The Termination Purchase Right will terminate and expire upon Daewoong’s sale of 50% of its common stock, including common stock held by its affiliates and common stock that would be issued upon an Automatic Conversion or Optional Conversion (as defined in the Convertible Notes).

As of the date of this Report, we expect to have sufficient cash to fund our operating plan through June 2024, including $15 million of committed financing related to the issuance of certain Convertible Notes with Daewoong. For more information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” We are actively attempting to secure additional capital to fund our operations. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Any further development of ABP- 450 for any indication, including the completion of the Phase 2 open-label extension study in migraine, any Phase 3 trials for migraine, and any additional studies in cervical dystonia, will require additional funding, which may not be available to us on reasonable terms, or at all.

We have incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from operating activities since inception and expect to continue to incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never become profitable. We expect to continue to incur substantial costs in order to conduct R&D activities necessary to develop and commercialize our product candidates. Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue from sales of ABP-450, we will need additional capital to undertake these activities and commercialization efforts, and, therefore, we intend to raise such capital through the issuance of additional equity, borrowings, and potentially strategic alliances with other companies. However, if such financing is not available at adequate levels or on acceptable terms, we could be required to reduce the scope of or eliminate some of our development programs or commercialization efforts, out-license intellectual property rights to our product candidates or sell unsecured assets, or a combination of the above, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and/or our ability to fund our scheduled obligations on a timely basis or at all. Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon our ability to successfully accomplish these plans and secure sources of financing and ultimately attain profitable operations.

Our primary use of cash is to fund operating expenses, which consist of R&D expenditures, including clinical trials, as well as SG&A expenditures. Cash used to fund operating expenses is impacted by the timing of when we pay or prepay these expenses.

We may also seek to raise additional capital through the sale of public or private equity or convertible debt securities. If we incur additional debt, the debt holders would have rights senior to holders of common stock to make claims on our assets, and the terms of any debt could restrict our operations, including our ability to pay dividends to holders of our common stock. If we undertake discretionary financing by issuing equity securities or convertible debt securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at a price per share that is less than the price per share paid by current public stockholders. If we sell common stock, convertible securities, or other equity securities in more than one transaction, stockholders may be further diluted by subsequent sales. Additionally, future equity financings may result in new investors receiving rights superior to our existing stockholders. Because our decision to issue securities in the future will depend on numerous considerations, including factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of any future issuances of debt or equity securities. As a result, our stockholders bear the risk of future issuances of debt or equity securities reducing the value of our common stock and diluting their interests.

We may receive additional capital from the cash exercise of the Warrants. However, the exercise price of our Warrants and the Private Placement Warrants is $11.50 per warrant and the last reported sales price of our common stock on March 26, 2024 was $11.41. The likelihood that holders of Warrants will exercise their Warrants or Private Placement Warrants, and therefore the

likelihood of any amount of cash proceeds that we may receive, is dependent upon the trading price of our Common Stock after effectiveness of our registration statement on Form S-1 registering the issuance of common stock underlying the Warrants and Private Placement Warrants. If the trading price for our common stock does not maintain a price above $11.50 per share after the effectiveness of such registration statement on Form S-1, we do not expect holders to exercise their Warrants for cash. Beginning the 61^st business day after the closing of the Business Combination, holders of Warrants can exercise Warrants on a cashless basis at any time when such registration statement is not available. The warrants and Private Placement Warrants may be exercised on a cashless basis at any time and we will not receive any proceeds from such exercise, even if the Private Placement Warrants are in-the-money. We will have broad discretion over the use of any proceeds from the exercise of such securities. Any proceeds from the exercise of such securities would increase our liquidity, but we are not currently budgeting for any cash proceeds from the exercise of Warrants when planning for our operational funding needs.

To the extent that we raise additional capital through marketing and distribution arrangements or other collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or product licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If these sources are insufficient to satisfy our liquidity requirements, we will seek to raise additional funds through future equity or debt financings. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders would experience dilution. Additional debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. There can be no assurance that our efforts to procure additional financing will be successful or that, if they are successful, the terms and conditions of such financing will be favorable to us or our stockholders. If we are unable to raise additional financing when needed, we may be required to delay, reduce, or terminate the development, commercialization and marketing of our products and scale back our business and operations.

As a result of these conditions, management has concluded that substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern exists as conditions and events, considered in the aggregate, indicate that it is probable that we will be unable to meet our obligations as they become due within one year after the date that the financial statements included in this Report are issued. Our financial information throughout this Report and our financial statements included elsewhere in this Report have been prepared on a basis that assumes that we will continue as a going concern, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. This financial information and our consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result from an unfavorable outcome of this uncertainty. Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon our ability to successfully accomplish our business plans and secure sources of financing and ultimately attain profitable operations.

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) were $21.7 million and $26.1 million, respectively, consisting primarily of a net loss of $60.7 million (Predecessor) and income of $24.0 million (Successor) and non-cash charges of $8.5 million, consisting primarily of $19.4 million related to the change in fair value of the convertible notes (Predecessor), $(2.3) million related to change in fair value of warrants (Successor), $8.4 million related to change in fair value of derivatives (Successor), $(52.8) million related to change in fair value of contingent consideration (Successor) and a $7.0 million non-cash expense related to stock-based compensation for our executives and directors, consisting of $3.2 million (Predecessor) and $3.8 million (Successor); and a decrease in accounts payable of $4.6 million related to timing of payments to our vendors, offset by an increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities of $2.5 million primarily related to increase in clinical trial accrual of $3.0 million.

Net cash used in operating activities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 was $35.6 million, consisting primarily of a net loss of $52.6 million and non-cash items of $10.7 million, consisting primarily of $4.4 million related to the change in the fair value of the convertible notes (Predecessor) and a $5.9 million non-cash expense related to stock-based compensation for our executives and directors (Predecessor), and increase of $6.6 million in accounts payable related to timing of payments to our vendors.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) were zero for both periods, and $0.3 million for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor), related to the purchase of property and equipment.

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor) and July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023 (Successor) were $14.0 million and $0, respectively, primarily related to the issuance of convertible notes.

Net cash provided by financing activities for the twelve months ended December 31, 2022 (Predecessor) was $40.5, related to the issuance of convertible notes.

Convertible Notes (Predecessor)

Our convertible notes prior to the Merger included the Strathspey Crown Note, the SCH Convertible Note, the 2019 Convertible Notes, 2021 A1 Convertible Notes and the Daewoong Convertible Note, each described in more detail below. At the Closing, the convertible notes were converted into shares of Successor common stock.

Strathspey Crown Note and SCH Convertible Note. Since December 2013, we had been party to an intercompany credit line promissory note (the “Strathspey Crown Note”), pursuant to which SCH, our majority stockholder, had advanced borrowings to us to fund our capital requirements. Effective as of January 2, 2020, we and SCH cancelled all obligations under the Strathspey Crown Note and in exchange we issued a convertible promissory note to SCH (the “SCH Convertible Note”, with a principal amount of $17.5 million. We accounted for the debt exchange as an extinguishment of the Strathspey Crown Note and recognized a loss on debt extinguishment of $11.8 million, representing the difference between the fair value of the SCH Convertible Note of $26.5 million, the fair value of which included the principal plus the value of the embedded features as described below at January 2, 2020 and total obligations outstanding under the Strathspey Crown Note of $15.8 million less the unamortized borrowing cost of $0.5 million. The SCH Convertible Note and the interest due thereupon was paid out in shares of Old AEON common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger, which were then converted into shares of Successor common stock at the Closing.

2019 Debt Financings. In June 2019, we entered into a senior unsecured note purchase agreement (the “Original 2019 Note Purchase Agreement”), with Dental Innovations BVBA (“Dental Innovations”), pursuant to which we issued Dental Innovations a promissory note (the “Original 2019 Note”), with a principal amount of $5.0 million. Pursuant to the terms of the Original 2019 Note, we were required to repay a total of $8.75 million, representing all principal and interest owed, upon the earliest to occur of (i) June 19, 2022, (ii) Dental Innovations’ demand for repayment following our completion of an initial public offering and (iii) our election to repay the Original 2019 Note in full.

Under the Original 2019 Note Purchase Agreement, Dental Innovations committed to purchase from us an additional promissory note with a principal amount of $5.0 million, subject to our issuing and selling an additional promissory note with a principal amount of $5.0 million to a lender not affiliated with Dental Innovations. Any such additional promissory notes were to have the same payment terms as the Original 2019 Note.

In December 2019, we entered into an amendment to the Original 2019 Note Purchase Agreement that provided for the exchange of the Original 2019 Note for a convertible promissory note with a principal amount of $5.0 million. In addition, Dental Innovations was no longer committed to purchase from us an additional promissory note with a principal amount of $5.0 million subject to us issuing and selling an additional promissory note with a principal amount of $5.0 million to a lender not affiliated with Dental Innovations. In December 2019, we issued and sold five additional convertible promissory notes, each with a principal amount of $1.0 million, including one to SCH and one to a member of our Board. All six such convertible promissory notes are referred to as the 2019 Convertible Notes.

The 2019 Convertible Notes and the interest due thereupon was converted into in shares of Old AEON common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger, which were then converted into shares of Successor common stock at the Closing.

A1 Convertible Notes. In December 2021, we entered into an agreement with A1 (the “A1 Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which we expected to issue subordinated convertible promissory notes to A1 with an aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million. On December 8 and 15, 2021, we issued two convertible notes (together, the “2021 A1 Convertible Notes”), each with a principal amount of $5.0 million and totaling $10.0 million, that each matures on the third anniversary of its issuance. The 2021 A1 Convertible Notes were unsecured and subordinated to our other convertible notes.

The 2021 A1 Convertible Notes bore interest daily at the lesser of 10% per annum or the maximum rate permissible by law. Interest was paid in-kind by adding the accrued amount thereof to the principal amount on a monthly basis on the last day of each calendar month for so long as any principal amount remained outstanding.

Subsequent to December 31, 2021, we issued five additional tranches of subordinated convertible promissory notes to A1 on February 18, 2022, March 9, 2022, April 14, 2022, June 3, 2022 and July 1, 2022 (collectively, the “2022 A1 Convertible Notes”), the first four with a principal amount of $3.0 million each and the fifth issued July 1, 2022, for a principal amount of $2.5 million and totaling $14.5 million. The terms of the 2022 A1 Convertible Notes are similar to those of the 2021 A1 Convertible Notes. As of December 31, 2022, the principal balance was $14.5 million, with an estimated fair value of $13.5 million.

Additionally, on March 30, 2022, we amended the 2021 A1 Convertible Notes and the convertible notes issued on February 18, 2022 and March 9, 2022 to remove the discount rate associated with the automatic conversion of any outstanding convertible notes into share of common stock in connection with an initial public offering.

On March 6, 2023, we entered into an agreement with A1 (the “Original A1 Note Subscription Agreement”), pursuant to which we issued subordinated convertible promissory notes to A1 with an aggregate principal amount of $6.0 million (the “March 2023 A1 Convertible Notes”), that matured upon the earlier of (x) the date of the consummation of the Merger and (y) December 29, 2023. The March 2023 A1 Convertible Notes bore interest at 15.79% based on simple interest daily, unless issued at least five days prior to maturity date. The March 2023 A1 Convertible Notes were unsecured and subordinated to the Company’s other convertible notes. As of June 30, 2023, the principal amount outstanding was $6 million with an estimated fair value of $7.9 million.

In April 2023, the contingent warrants were amended to include the merger between AEON and Old AEON as a qualifying listing under the warrant agreement, which stated that the holders of the contingent warrants would exercise the warrants, and that the holders would receive 85% of the shares the holders would have been entitled to receive via the previous warrant agreement. The contingent warrants were cancelled at the same time the convertible notes were converted to shares of the Company’s stock. The Company determined that the contingent warrants amendment modified the settlement provision in the 2019 Convertible Notes. The Company determined that the amendment should be accounted for as a debt extinguishment. Since the noteholders were both shareholders of Old AEON and Evolus and Alphaeon Credit, the debt extinguishment was accounted for as a capital transaction on the April 2023 modification date. As such, due to the warrant modification, the Predecessor recognized a $5.2 million reduction to the underlying fair value of the convertible notes and recorded a corresponding increase of $5.2 million to additional paid in capital during the period from January 1, 2023 to July 21, 2023 (Predecessor).

On May 2, 2023, we entered into an agreement with A1, pursuant to which we issued subordinated convertible promissory notes to A1 with an aggregate principal amount of $6.0 million (“May 2023 A1 Convertible Notes”) that matured on the earlier of (x) the date of the consummation of the Merger and (y) December 29, 2023. The May 2023 A1 Convertible Notes bore interest at 15.79%, based on simple interest daily. The May 2023 A1 Convertible Notes were unsecured and subordinated to the Company’s other convertible notes.

On June 23, 2023, A1 entered into an amendment to its Original A1 Note Subscription Agreement (the “Amended A1 Note Subscription Agreement”), to add the subscription of $20 million additional aggregate principal of subordinated convertible promissory notes. In connection therewith, on June 8, 2023, we and Priveterra entered into a Committed Financing Agreement with A1, or the Additional Committed Financing Agreement, pursuant to which A1 agreed to purchase, and Priveterra and we agreed to sell to A1, an additional $20 million aggregate principal of interim notes convertible into 2,857,143 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock, for a purchase price of $7.00 per share pursuant to the Additional Committed Financing Agreement.

On June 27, 2023, we entered into an agreement with A1, pursuant to which we issued subordinated convertible promissory notes to A1 with an aggregate principal amount of $2.0 million (“June 2023 A1 Convertible Notes”) that matured on the earlier of (x) the date of the consummation of the Merger and (y) December 29, 2023. The June 2023 A1 Convertible Notes bore interest at 15.79%, based on simple interest daily. The June 2023 A1 Convertible Notes were unsecured and subordinated to the Company’s other convertible notes.

The 2021 A1 Convertible Notes and 2022 A1 Convertible Notes and the interest due thereupon were repaid in shares of Old AEON common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger, which were then converted into shares of Successor

common stock at the Closing. The March 2023 A1 Convertible Notes, the May 2023 A1 Convertible Notes and the convertible notes subscribed for under the Amended A1 Note Subscription Agreement and Additional Committed Financing Agreement were repaid in shares of Priveterra Class A common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger and are not subject to any contractual lock-up.

Daewoong Convertible Notes. In August 2020, we entered into a Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement with Daewoong (the “Daewoong Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which we issued Daewoong two subordinated convertible promissory notes (the “2020 Daewoong Convertible Notes”), with an aggregate principal amount of $25.0 million. The 2020 Daewoong Convertible Notes have similar terms, of which one was issued on August 27, 2020 with a principal amount of $10.0 million and the other was issued on September 18, 2020 with a principal amount of $15.0 million. The 2020 Daewoong Convertible Notes were unsecured and subordinated to the 2019 Convertible Notes.

The 2020 Daewoong Convertible Notes bore interest daily at 3% per annum with semiannual compounding. Interest was paid in-kind by adding the accrued amount thereof to the principal amount on a semi-annual basis on June 30^th and December 31^st of each calendar year for so long as any principal amount remained outstanding (such paid in-kind interest, in the aggregate at any time, the “PIK Principal”). The 2020 Daewoong Convertible Notes had a maturity date of September 18, 2025.

In May 2021, the Daewoong Purchase Agreement was amended to provide for the issuance of an additional subordinated convertible promissory note by us to Daewoong at an initial principal amount of $5.0 million. The subordinated convertible promissory note was issued with terms similar to the two subordinated convertible promissory notes issued in 2020 and matures on May 12, 2026 (together with the 2020 Daewoong Convertible Notes, the “Daewoong Convertible Notes”).

On July 29, 2022, we entered into a Convertible Promissory Note Purchase Agreement between us and Daewoong (the “2022 Daewoong Note Purchase Agreement”), for total available financing of $30 million. The note purchased under the 2022 Daewoong Note Purchase Agreement (the “2022 Daewoong Note”), had a stated interest rate of 15.79% per annum. The 2022 Daewoong Note had a maturity date of December 29, 2023.

On June 27, 2023, we entered into an agreement with Daewoong, (the “Daewoong Note Subscription Agreement”), pursuant to which we issued subordinated convertible promissory notes to Daewoong with an aggregate principal amount of $5.0 million (the “2023 Daewoong Convertible Notes”), that matured upon the date of the consummation of the Merger. The 2023 Daewoong Convertible Notes were unsecured and subordinated to the Company’s other convertible notes.

The Daewoong Convertible Notes and the 2022 Daewoong Note and the interest due thereupon were repaid in shares of Old AEON common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger, which were then converted into shares of Successor common stock at the Closing. The 2023 Daewoong Convertible Notes were repaid in shares of Priveterra Class A common stock immediately prior to the consummation of the Merger and are not subject to any contractual lock-up, which were then converted into shares of Successor common stock at the Closing.

As of December 31, 2022, the principal amount outstanding (excluding the PIK Principal) under the Daewoong Convertible Notes and the 2022 Daewoong Note was $60.0 million, with an estimated fair value of $67.3 million.

Committed Financings and Forward Purchase Agreements in Connection with the Merger

Committed Financing

In connection with the Merger, on January 6, 2023, Priveterra and Old AEON entered into separate subscription agreements for convertible notes with each of Alphaeon 1 LLC (“A1”) and Daewoong Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“Daewoong”) (collectively, the “Original Committed Financing Agreements”), pursuant to which A1 and Daewoong agreed to purchase, and Priveterra and Old AEON agreed to sell to each of them, up to $15 million and $5 million, respectively, aggregate of principal of interim convertible notes. Further, on June 8, 2023, Old AEON and Priveterra entered into a committed financing agreement with A1 (the “Additional Committed Financing Agreement”), pursuant to which A1 agreed to purchase, and Priveterra and Old AEON agreed to sell to A1, up to an additional $20 million aggregate principal of interim convertible notes. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company issued $14 million of interim convertible notes to A1 in the first and second quarters of 2023. The notes were subsequently measured at fair value

under a fair value option election, with changes in fair value reported in earnings of the Predecessor (Old AEON). Conversion of the notes was contingent and automatically convertible on the Merger, and 2,226,182 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock were issued on the Closing Date in settlement of their conversion. The proceeds from the interim convertible notes were used to fund Old AEON’s operations through the consummation of the Merger. Additionally, approximately $25 million was received on the Closing Date in exchange for an aggregate of 3,571,429 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock at $7.00 per share that were issued under a committed financing agreement between Priveterra, Old AEON, and each of two investors, A1 and Daewoong.

Forward Purchase Agreements (Successor)

On June 29, 2023, Priveterra and Old AEON entered into the Forward Purchase Agreements with each of (i) ACM and (ii) Polar (each of ACM and Polar, individually, a “Seller”, and together, the “Sellers”) for OTC Equity Prepaid Forward Transactions. For purposes of each Forward Purchase Agreement, Priveterra is referred to as the “Company” prior to the consummation of the Merger, while AEON is referred to as the “Company” after the consummation of the Merger. Any reference herein to the “Forward Purchase Agreement” are to be treated as a reference to each Seller’s separate agreement and should be construed accordingly and any action taken by a Seller should be construed as an action under its own respective agreement. As described above in Liquidity and Capital Resources, the Forward Purchase Agreements were terminated on March 18, 2024.

Pursuant to the terms of the Forward Purchase Agreements, the Sellers intended, but were not obligated, to purchase up to 7,500,000 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock in the aggregate concurrently with the Closing pursuant to each Seller’s respective FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreement. No Seller would be required to purchase an amount of shares of Priveterra Class A common stock that would result in that Seller owning more than 9.9% of the total shares of Priveterra Class A common stock outstanding immediately after giving effect to such purchase, unless such Seller, at its sole discretion, waived such 9.9% ownership limitation. The Number of Shares subject to a Forward Purchase Agreement was subject to reduction following a termination of the Forward Purchase Agreements with respect to such shares as described under “Optional Early Termination” in the respective Forward Purchase Agreements.

Each Forward Purchase Agreement provided that a Seller would be paid directly the Prepayment Amount which was equal to an aggregate of $66.7 million based on the product of (i) 6,275,000 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock and (ii) the redemption price per share of $10.63.

On July 21, 2023, the Company was obligated to pay to each Seller separately the Prepayment Amount required under its respective Forward Purchase Agreement, except that since the Prepayment Amount payable to a Seller was to be paid from the purchase of the Additional Shares by such Seller pursuant to the terms of its respective FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreement, such amount was netted against such proceeds, with such Seller being able to reduce the purchase price for the Additional Shares by the Prepayment Amount. For the avoidance of doubt, any Additional Shares purchased by a Seller were to be included in the Number of Shares for its respective Forward Purchase Agreement for all purposes, including for determining the Prepayment Amount. Therefore, the aggregate Prepayment Amount of $66.7 million was netted against the proceeds paid from the purchase of the Additional Shares in the aggregate by the Sellers pursuant to the FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreements. We did not have access to the Prepayment Amount immediately following the Closing and, pursuant to the FPA Termination Agreements, the Sellers will retain the Prepayment Amount in full, which may adversely affect our liquidity and capital needs. At Closing, the Prepayment Amount of $66.7 million was recorded as Subscription Receivables on the Successor’s consolidated balance sheets at present value of $60.7 million, with the $6.0 million being recorded as a loss “on the line” in the Successor’s opening accumulated deficit (see Note 3 Forward Merger).

Prior to the termination of the Forward Purchase Agreements as described above in Liquidity and Capital Resources, the redemption price per share in the Forward Purchase Agreements was subject to a reset price (the "Reset Price"). The Reset Price was initially the redemption price per share of $10.63 per share. Beginning 90 days after the Closing, the Reset Price became subject to monthly resets, to be the lowest of (a) the then-current Reset Price, (b) $10.63 and (c) the 30-day volume-weighted average price of the Company’s Common Stock immediately preceding such monthly reset. The monthly resets of the Reset Price were subject to a floor of $7.00 per share (the “Reset Price Floor”); however, if during the term of the Forward Purchase Agreements, the Company were to sell or issue any shares of Common Stock or securities convertible or exercisable for shares of Common Stock at an effective price of less than the Reset Price (a “Dilutive Offering”), then the Reset Price would have immediately reset to the effective price of such offering and the Reset Price Floor would be eliminated. Additionally, in the event of a Dilutive Offering, the maximum number

of shares available under the Forward Purchase Agreements could have been increased if the Dilutive Offering occurred at a price below $10.00 per shares. The maximum number of shares would have been reset to equal 7,500,000 divided by a number equal to the offering price in the Dilutive Offering divided by $10.00.

We did not have access to the Prepayment Amount immediately following the Closing and, depending on the manner of settlement for the transactions covered by the Forward Purchase Agreements, may have had limited or no access to the Prepayment Amount during the terms of the Forward Purchase Agreements, particularly if the Company’s Common Stock continues to trade below the prevailing Reset Price. Further, prior to the termination of the Forward Purchase Agreements in March 2024, the Company would have been required to make cash payments to the counterparties in respect of settlement amounts under the Forward Purchase Agreements, such as in the case of a failure to maintain the listing of the Company’s Common Stock on a national securities exchange.

From time to time and on any date following the Merger (any such date, an “OET Date”), any Seller had the option, in its absolute discretion, to terminate its Forward Purchase Agreement in whole or in part by providing written notice to the Company (the “OET Notice”), no later than the next Payment Date following the OET Date (which would have specified the quantity by which the Number of Shares was to be reduced (such quantity, the “Terminated Shares”)). The effect of an OET Notice would have been to reduce the Number of Shares by the number of Terminated Shares specified in such OET Notice with effect as of the related OET Date. As of each OET Date, the Company would have been entitled to an amount from the Seller, and the Seller would have been obligated to pay to the Company an amount, equal to the product of (x) the number of Terminated Shares and (y) the Reset Price in respect of such OET Date.

Pursuant to the terms of the Forward Purchase Agreements, the “Valuation Date” would have been the earlier to occur of (a) the date that is two years after the Closing Date pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement; (b) the date specified by Seller in a written notice to be delivered to AEON at such Seller’s discretion (which Valuation Date would not be earlier than the day such notice is effective) after the occurrence of any of (w) a VWAP Trigger Event, (x) a Delisting Event, or (y) a Registration Failure (defined terms in each of clauses (b)(w) through (b)(y), as described in further detail below) and (c) 90 days after delivery by AEON of a written notice in the event that for any 20 trading days during a 30 consecutive trading day-period that occurred at least 6 months after the Closing Date, the VWAP Price was less than the current Reset Price Floor of $7.00 per share; provided, however, that the Reset Price would have been reduced immediately to any lower price at which the Company would have sold, issued or granted any shares or securities convertible or exchangeable into shares (other than, among other things, grants or issuances under the Company’s equity compensation plans, any securities issued in connection with the Merger or any securities issued in connection with the FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreements), subject to certain exceptions, in which case the Reset Price Floor would be eliminated.

On the Cash Settlement Payment Date, which would have been the tenth local business day following the last day of the valuation period commencing on the Valuation Date, a Seller was obligated to pay the Company a cash amount equal to (1) (A) a maximum of up to 7,500,000 shares of common stock (the “Number of Shares”) as of the Valuation Date less the number of Unregistered Shares, multiplied by (B) the volume-weighted daily VWAP Price over the Valuation Period less (2) if the Settlement Amount Adjustment was less than the cash amount to be paid, the Settlement Amount Adjustment. The Settlement Amount Adjustment was equal to (1) the Number of Shares as of the Valuation Date multiplied by (2) $2.00 per share, and the Settlement Amount Adjustment will be automatically netted from the Settlement Amount.

Forward Purchase Agreement Subscription and Letter Agreements

On June 29, 2023, Priveterra entered into separate subscription agreements (the “FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreements”) with each of ACM and Polar (collectively, the “FPA Funding PIPE Investors”). Pursuant to the FPA Funding Amount PIPE Subscription Agreements, the FPA Funding PIPE Investors agreed to subscribe for and purchase, and Priveterra agreed to issue and sell to the FPA Funding PIPE Investors, on the Closing, an aggregate of up to 7,500,000 shares of Priveterra Class A common stock, less the Recycled Shares in connection with the Forward Purchase Agreements.

On June 29, 2023, Priveterra entered into separate subscription agreements (the “New Money PIPE Subscription Agreements”) with each of ACM ASOF VIII Secondary-C LP (“ACM Investor”), the Polar Affiliate and certain other investors (collectively, the “New Money PIPE Investors”). Pursuant to the New Money PIPE Subscription Agreements, the New Money PIPE Investors subscribed for and purchased, and Priveterra issued and sold to the New Money PIPE Investors, on the Closing Date, an aggregate of 1,001,000 shares of Priveterra Class A Common Stock for a purchase price of $7.00 per share, for aggregate gross proceeds of $7.0

million (the “New Money PIPE Investment”). Certain affiliates of ACM Investor purchased 236,236 shares from third parties through a broker in the open market prior to the Closing, for which all redemption rights were irrevocably waived. ACM Investor held such redeemed shares as freely tradeable shares prior to the Closing, and the proceeds to the Company provided by such redeemed shares were netted against the $3.5 million that ACM Investor was otherwise obligated to pay the Company under its New Money PIPE Subscription Agreement. Accordingly, Priveterra received $3.5 million from Polar and $0.9 million from ACM Investor (net of redeemed shares and fees) in connection with the New Money PIPE Subscription Agreements for the issuance of 1,001,000 shares.

On June 29, 2023, the Sponsor entered into separate letter agreements (each, “Letter Agreement” and collectively, the “Letter Agreements”) with each of ACM Investor and Polar. Pursuant to the Letter Agreements, in the event that the average price per share at which shares of common stock purchased pursuant to the New Money PIPE Subscription Agreements that are transferred during the period ending on the earliest of (A) June 21, 2025, (B) the date on which the applicable Forward Purchase Agreement terminates and (C) the date on which all such shares are sold (such price, the “Transfer VWAP”, and such period, the “Measurement Period”) is less than $7.00 per share, then (i) ACM Investor and Polar shall be entitled to receive from Sponsor a number of additional shares of common stock that have been registered for resale by us under an effective resale registration statement pursuant to the Securities Act, under which ACM Investor and Polar may sell or transfer such shares of common stock in an amount that is equal to the lesser of (A) a number of shares of common stock equal to the Make-Whole Amount divided by the VWAP (measured as of the date the additional shares are transferred to ACM Investor or Polar, as applicable) and (B) an aggregate of 400,000 shares of common stock (the “Additional Founder Shares”) and (ii) Sponsor shall promptly (but in any event within fifteen (15) business days) after the Measurement Date, transfer the Additional Founder Shares to ACM Investor or Polar, as applicable. “Make-Whole Amount” means an amount equal to the product of (A) $7.00 minus the Transfer VWAP multiplied by (B) the number of Transferred PIPE Shares. “VWAP” means the per share volume weighted average price of the common stock in respect of the five consecutive trading days ending on the trading day immediately prior to the Measurement Date. “Measurement Date” means the last day of the Measurement Period.

Contingent Consideration

As part of the Merger, Founder Shares and certain Participating Stockholders shares (together, “Contingent Consideration Shares”), as further discussed below, contain certain contingent provisions.

On April 27, 2023, Priveterra and Old AEON amended the Business Combination Agreement. Concurrently with the amendment to the Business Combination Agreement, Priveterra amended the Sponsor Support Agreement to include restriction and forfeiture provisions related to the Founder Shares. In addition following the Closing, certain AEON stockholders will be issued a portion of up to 16,000,000 additional shares of common stock

Pursuant to the terms of the Sponsor Support Agreement, as amended, effective immediately after the Closing, 50% of the Founder Shares (i.e., 3,450,000 Founder Shares) (the “Contingent Founder Shares”) were unvested and subject to the restrictions and forfeiture provisions set forth in this Sponsor Support Agreement. The remaining 50% of the Founder Shares and 100% of the Private Placement Warrants are not subject to such restrictions and forfeiture provisions. The Contingent Founder Shares shall vest, and shall become free of the provisions as follows:

● 1,000,000 of the Contingent Founder Shares (the “Migraine Phase 3 Contingent Founder Shares”) shall vest upon the achievement of the conditions for the issuance of the Migraine Phase 3 Contingent Consideration Shares on or prior to the Migraine Phase 3 Outside Date;

● 1,000,000 of the Contingent Founder Shares (the “CD BLA Contingent Founder Shares”) shall vest upon the achievement of the conditions for the issuance of the CD BLA Contingent Consideration Shares on or prior to the CD BLA Outside Date; and

● 1,450,000 of the Contingent Founder Shares (the “Episodic/Chronic Migraine Contingent Founder Shares”) shall vest upon the earlier of (x) the achievement of the conditions for the issuance of the Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares on or before the Episodic Migraine Outside Date and (y) the achievement of the conditions for the issuance of the Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares on or before the Chronic Migraine Outside Date.

The Sponsor has agreed not to vote the Contingent Founder Shares during any period of time that such Contingent Founder Shares are subject to vesting.

Following the Closing, in addition to the consideration received at the Closing and as part of the overall consideration paid in connection with the Merger, certain holders of common stock in Old AEON (the “Participating AEON Stockholders”) will be issued a portion of up to 16,000,000 additional shares of common stock, as follows:

● 1,000,000 shares of common stock, in the aggregate, if, on or before June 30, 2025 (as it may be extended, the “Migraine Phase 3 Outside Date”), the Company shall have commenced a Phase 3 clinical study for the treatment of chronic migraine or episodic migraine, which Phase 3 clinical study will have been deemed to commence upon the first subject having received a dose of any product candidate that is being researched, tested, developed or manufactured by or on behalf of the Company or any of its subsidiaries (any such product candidate, a “Company Product”) in connection with such Phase 3 clinical study (such 1,000,000 shares of common stock, the “Migraine Phase 3 Contingent Consideration Shares”); and

● 4,000,000 shares of common stock, in the aggregate, if, on or before November 30, 2026 (as it may be extended, the “CD BLA Outside Date”), the Company shall have received from the FDA acceptance for review of the BLA submitted by the Company for the treatment of cervical dystonia (such 4,000,000 shares of common stock, the “CD BLA Contingent Consideration Shares”);

● 4,000,000 shares of common stock, in the aggregate, if, on or before June 30, 2029 (as it may be extended, the “Episodic Migraine Outside Date”), the Company shall have received from the FDA acceptance for review of the BLA submitted by the Company for the treatment of episodic migraine (such 4,000,000 shares of common stock, the “Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares”); provided that in the event the satisfaction of the conditions for the issuance of the Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares occurs prior to the satisfaction of the conditions for the issuance of the Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares, then the number of Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares shall be increased to 11,000,000 shares of common stock; and

● 7,000,000 shares of common stock, in the aggregate, if, on or before June 30, 2028 (as it may be extended, the “Chronic Migraine Outside Date”, and together with the Migraine Phase 3 Outside Date, the CD BLA Outside Date and the Episodic Migraine Outside Date, the “Outside Dates”), the Company shall have received from the FDA acceptance for review of the BLA submitted by AEON for the treatment of chronic migraine (such 7,000,000 shares of common stock, the “Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares”); provided that in the event that the number of Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares is increased to 11,000,000, then the number of Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares shall be decreased to zero and no Contingent Consideration Shares will be issued in connection with the satisfaction of the conditions to the issuance of the Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares.

● In the event that the Company licenses any of its products (except in connection with migraine or cervical dystonia indications) to a third-party licensor for distribution in the U.S. market (a “Qualifying License”) prior to the satisfaction of (x) the conditions for the issuance of the Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares and (y) the conditions for the issuance of the Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares, then upon the entry of AEON into such Qualifying License, 2,000,000 shares of common stock shall become due and payable to Participating Stockholders and the number of Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares and (A) the number of Episodic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares shall be reduced by 1,000,000 or by 2,000,000 and (B) the number of Chronic Migraine Contingent Consideration Shares shall be reduced by 1,000,000, but not below zero.

The Company accounts for the Contingent Consideration Shares as either equity-classified or liability-classified instruments based on an assessment of the Contingent Consideration Shares specific terms and applicable authoritative guidance in ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (“ASC 480”) and ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging (“ASC 815”). Based on the appropriate guidance, the Company determined that the Contingent Consideration Shares would be classified as a liability on the Successor’s consolidated balance sheets and remeasured at each reporting period with changes to fair value recorded to the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income, while the founder shares were recorded to equity. As of December 31, 2023 (Successor), the contingent consideration liability was $104.4 million. The Company utilized the Probability-

Weighted Expected Return Method (PWERM) model to value the contingent consideration based on earnout milestones, probability of forfeiture and success scenarios. For the successor period July 22, 2023 to December 31, 2023, the Company recognized $52.8 million in income related to the change in fair value of contingent consideration on the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, revenue and expenses at the date of the financial statements as well as the expenses incurred during the reporting period. Generally, we base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions in accordance with United States GAAP that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions and such differences could be material to the financial position and results of operations. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our judgments and estimates in light of changes in circumstances, facts and experience.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in the notes to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Report, we believe the following accounting policies to be most critical for fully understanding and evaluating our financial condition and results of operations, as these policies relate to the more significant areas involving management’s judgments and estimates.

Fair Value Option

We elected to account for our convertible promissory notes, warrants, forward purchase agreement and contingent consideration, which met the required criteria, at fair value at inception. Subsequent changes in fair value are recorded as a component of other (loss) income in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income or as a component of other comprehensive income (loss) for changes related to instrument-specific credit risk. As a result of electing the fair value option, direct costs and fees related to the liabilities are expensed as incurred.

Acquired in-Process Research and Development

The Company records costs incurred in obtaining technology licenses to research and development expense as acquired in-process research and development (“IPR&D”) if the technology licensed has not reached technological feasibility and has no alternative future use. The Company used a Multi-Period Excess Earnings Method under the Income Approach for the valuation of IPR&D. The valuation is subject to inputs and assumptions that have variability, including, but not limited to, the discount rate used, the total addressable market for each potential drug, market penetration assumptions, and the estimated timing of commercialization of the drugs. Changes in these inputs and assumptions could have a significant impact on the fair value of the IPR&D. The IPR&D recorded at the Closing was written off and is included on the line in the consolidated financial statements (see Note 3 Forward Merger to the consolidated financial statements).

Contingent Consideration (Successor)

The Company accounts for its contingent consideration as either equity-classified or liability-classified instruments based on an assessment of the Contingent Consideration Shares specific terms and applicable authoritative guidance in ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (“ASC 480”) and ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging (“ASC 815”). Based on the appropriate guidance, the Company determined that the Contingent Consideration Shares would be classified as a liability on the Successor’s consolidated balance sheets and remeasured at each reporting period with changes to fair value recorded to the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. The Company utilized the Probability-Weighted Expected Return Method (PWERM) model to value the contingent consideration based on earnout milestones, probability of forfeiture and success scenarios. The valuation is subject to inputs and assumptions that have variability, including stock price and milestone probabilities. As stock price and/or probabilities of achieving the milestones increases or decreases, this may result in an increase or decrease, respectively, in the liability.

Forward Purchase Agreements (Successor)

Based on the applicable guidance in ASC 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (“ASC 480”) and ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging (“ASC 815”), the Company has determined it is a freestanding financial instrument and the prepaid forward contract is a derivative instrument. The Company has recorded the prepaid forward contract as a derivative liability and measured it at fair value with the initial value of the derivative recorded as a loss “on the line” in the Successor’s opening accumulated deficit. Subsequent changes in the fair value of the forward purchase agreements are recorded in the Successor’s consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. The Company utilized the Monte-Carlo valuation model to value the forward purchase agreements. The valuation is subject to inputs and assumptions that have variability, including stock price, risk-free rate and volatility, and changes in these inputs may result in increases or decreases in the liabilities.

Warrants (Successor)

The Company accounts for warrants as either equity-classified or liability-classified instruments based on an assessment of the warrant’s specific terms and applicable authoritative guidance in FASB ASC 480 and ASC Topic 815, “Derivatives and Hedging” (“ASC 815”). The assessment considers whether the warrants are freestanding financial instruments pursuant to ASC 480, meet the definition of a liability pursuant to ASC 480, and whether the warrants meet all of the requirements for equity classification under ASC 815, including whether the warrants are indexed to the Company’s own shares of common stock, among other conditions for equity classification. This assessment, which requires the use of professional judgment, is conducted at the time of warrant issuance and as of each subsequent quarterly period end date while the warrants are outstanding. For issued or modified warrants that meet all of the criteria for equity classification, the warrants are required to be recorded as a component of additional paid-in capital at the time of issuance. For issued or modified warrants that do not meet all the criteria for equity classification, the warrants are required to be recorded at their initial fair value on the date of issuance, and each balance sheet date thereafter until settlement. Changes in the estimated fair value of the warrants are recognized as a non-cash gain or loss on the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. The Company utilized the publicly reported market price of the public warrants to value the warrant liability. The valuation is subject to inputs and assumptions that have variability, including market price of warrants, and changes in warrant price may result in an increase or decrease in the liability.

Share-based Compensation

Immediately prior to the Closing, ABP merged with and into us so that we are the surviving corporation, which we refer to as the Subsidiary Merger. Pursuant to the Subsidiary Merger, all options and RSU awards of ABP that are outstanding immediately prior to the merger converted into substantially similar awards covering shares of our common stock, with an adjustment to the number of shares subject to the award and, with respect to the options, the exercise price to reflect the economic value of the new award within our capital structure. Additionally, we, in each case, determined the conversion ratio of the ABP awards by dividing the number of shares of our common stock outstanding on an as- converted basis by the number of shares of common stock of ABP outstanding, and then dividing by a number equal to the number of ABP options outstanding divided by the number of ABP awards outstanding plus the ABP shares held by the Company to account for the awards representing 21.63% of ABP’s fully diluted shares outstanding. This resulted in a conversion ratio of 77.65 to 1 shares. As of the date of this Report, ABP had granted options to purchase a total of 45,272 ABP Sub options which converted into options to purchase 3,515,218 shares of our common stock, and a total of 15,059 RSU awards which converted into RSU awards covering 1,169,366 shares of our common stock, although 127,801 of such RSU awards accelerated and vested at the Closing, which resulted in 1,041,565 shares of our common stock subject to RSU awards remaining outstanding following the Closing. We do not anticipate any additional stock-based compensation expense to result from the ABP merger and the conversion of the awards.

In connection with the Subsidiary Merger, AEON assumed the ABP 2019 Plan and the outstanding stock options and RSU awards under the ABP 2019 Plan converted into awards covering AEON common stock, and such options, all of which have “underwater” exercise prices, were repriced such that the per share exercise price is equal to the fair market value of AEON’s common stock on the date of the Subsidiary Merger.

JOBS Act; Smaller Reporting Company

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the Securities Act, as modified by the JOBS Act. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on certain exemptions from various public company reporting requirements, including not being required to have our internal control over financial reporting audited by our independent registered

public accounting firm pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, and exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In particular, in this Report, we have provided only two years of audited financial statements and have not included all of the executive compensation- related information that would be required if we were not an emerging growth company. Section 102(b)(2) of the JOBS Act allows us to delay adoption of the new or revised accounting standards until those standards apply to non-public business entities. Accordingly, the information contained herein may be different than the information you receive from other public companies in which you hold stock.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) the last day of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of Priveterra’s initial public offering (December 31, 2026), (ii) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.235 billion, (iii) the last day of the fiscal year in which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, which would occur if the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700.0 million as of the last business day of the second fiscal quarter of such year, or (iv) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period.

We are also a “smaller reporting company,” as such term is defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act, meaning that the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates plus the proposed aggregate amount of gross proceeds to us as a result of this offering is less than $700 million and our annual revenue is less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. We will continue to be a smaller reporting company if either (i) the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million or (ii) our annual revenue is less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million. If we are a smaller reporting company at the time we cease to be an emerging growth company, we may continue to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are available to smaller reporting companies.

Specifically, as a smaller reporting company, we may choose to present only the two most recent fiscal years of audited financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and, similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies have reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation. Investors could find our common stock less attractive to the extent we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and the trading price may be more volatile.

Recently Issued and Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

We describe the recently issued accounting pronouncements that apply to us in Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements.

​

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

The Company is a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act and is not required to provide the information under this Item.

​

​

​

​

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

​

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements

​

​

​

​

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

​

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of AEON Biopharma, Inc.:

​

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements

​

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of AEON Biopharma, Inc. and subsidiary (the Company) as of December 31, 2023 (Successor), the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income, convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for the periods from January 1, 2023 through July 21, 2023 (Predecessor), and July 22, 2023 through December 31, 2023 (Successor), and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2023 (Successor), and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the periods from January 1, 2023 through July 21, 2023 (Predecessor), and July 22, 2023 through December 31, 2023 (Successor), in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

​

Going Concern

​

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has experienced recurring losses from operations and has a net capital deficiency and negative cash flows from operations that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result the outcome of this uncertainty.

​

Basis for Opinion

​

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

​

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal controls over financial reporting. As part of our audit, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no opinion.

​

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

​

/s/ KPMG LLP

​

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2023.

​

San Diego, California

March 29, 2024

​

​

​

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

​

The Stockholders and Board of Directors of AEON Biopharma, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of AEON Biopharma, Inc. (Old AEON) (the Company) as of December 31, 2022, the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ deficit and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2022, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.  

The Company's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, the Company has experienced recurring losses from operations, has a net capital deficiency, negative cash flows from operations since inception, and has stated that substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management's evaluation of the events and conditions and management’s plans regarding these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.  

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB and in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audit, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.  

Our audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  

​

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

​

We served as the Company’s auditor from 2019 to 2023.

​

Irvine, California

March 9, 2023

​

AEON BIOPHARMA, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share data and par value amounts)

​

​

See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements

​

AEON BIOPHARMA, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE (LOSS) INCOME

(in thousands, except share and per share data)

​